Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 Tandy Xenix 02/17/86; site gilbbs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: New newsgroup proceedures, voting.. (long) Message-ID: <64@gilbbs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 04:05:26 EST Article-I.D.: gilbbs.64 Posted: Tue Mar 11 04:05:26 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 04:41:38 EST References: <5075@alice.uUCp> <3326@sun.uucp> <1195@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <1232@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA Lines: 100 Summary: confusion regarding the nature of the net, democratic principles, and supportive burdens... It seems to this observer (being quite new to the net...10 days today) that there is some confusion in this discussion of network decision processes. In particular, I see the concept of "democracy" being raised repeatedly. As *I* understand the network, it is an ad-hoc network, voluntarily supported by the participating sites. There is no formal structure or organization controlling the network, or access to it. I see no mention or promise, implicit or explicit, of "democratic process" in this description of the network. I see no reason for anyone to assume that they have any right whatever to dictate, either by individual action, or through supposedly "democratic" process, how, to what extent, when, or why any network site, backbone ot otherwise, is going to participate in the network. These so-called backbone sites have, for whatever reasons, chosen to carry much of the burden of traffic in the network. While having such backbone sites obviously improves the efficiency of the network, it also considerably complicates the political management of the network. The network, as a community, has apparently chosen to accept these complications as a reasonable trade-off for impoved efficiency. The backbone sites have apparently chosen to accept the cost and trouble of providing such service. How one can interpet an agreement, tacit or otherwise, to accept the cost of providing efficient communication services at no charge, as also implying that the provider agrees to comply with the wishes or demands of those receiving the service, is beyond me. This is *NOT* a democracy here. It is a cooperative. As such, unless and until *ALL* participating parties agree upon a formal structure for decision making, it seems obvious that those who make decisions have every right to do so, without justifying them, and without permission from others. Now, this is not to say that I would like to see the administrators of the backbone sites become involved in powerplays. So far, while I might not agree with some of the decisions I have seen, I haven't seen any that I could classify as malicious, or excessively arbitrary (now, to placate those who would argue the semantics of the words "arbitrary", let us recall that there is no requirement, implied or otherwise, that any site justify their actions. Therefore, while the decision may appear to be arbitrary from the point of view of other sites, there may well be very sound reasons for these decisions. Unless you are privy to the decision making policies of the sites making the decisions, you are not qualified to judge the degree to which these decisions are or are not arbitrary). It seems to me that the backbone sites, (as well as any other site) have the right to carry or not carry whatever traffic suits them. No one else has any right to cry foul. If a particular backbone (or other) site consistently makes decisions which upset and/or offend a sufficient number of sites, then the problem will reduce itself at that time when those sites remove that site from the traffic distribution lines. When a large enough number of sites have done so, a site which has been so excised will no longer have any significant effect upon the net. In essence, I believe that the adminstrators of the backbone sites have every right to decide what newsgroups they will and will not pass, without discussion, without permission, and without recrimination. That most (or all) of these adminstrators actually attempt to discuss such issues prior to decision making, and request feedback speaks highly of them, and highly of the network as a whole. It is not necessarily true that all sites carry some percentage of the cost of operating the network. My site bears no cost at all. I am most grateful for the generosity of the administrator of my feedsite, and for the generosity of all the sites that carry my traffic, in both directions. While I may be unhappy at the loss (or gain) a particular newsgroup, I remain sufficiently happy with what I *DO* receive that I am not going to start screaming. This doesn't mean to imply that the network oughtn't to complain. Certainly, if anyone feels that the decisions made by a site are detrimental to the network, they ought to express these concerns. But to cry foul, to accuse the backbone administrators of "dictatorship" is unfair, untrue and unreasonable. Persuade if you can. Suggest reconsideration. Bemaon your loss. But do not recriminate, and do not wax vitriolic. Such behaviour can have only one result: the destruction of USENET as a viable community. (for the record, I am a fairly rabid liberal/humanist, and react *VERY* strongly when I feel that my rights and/or freedoms are threatened. I do not tend to defend the status quo, and seldom defend the establishment (*ANY* establishment) Just go read my postings in net.politics, to see what I mean) I suggest that the bickering cease, and that we continue to operate as the community we are. All of us will be better served, and have a more peaceful and copacetic existence. End of comments by upstart newcomer. All flamers referred to /dev/null. -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)