Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.edu (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,news.stargate,news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: EndOfSourcesList+AnnouncementOfNetOmbudsman
Message-ID: <15982@gatech.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 23:17:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.15982
Posted: Mon Jun 29 23:17:05 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jul-87 04:28:18 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: spaf@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Organization: Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech
Lines: 273
Keywords: solving the moderation bottleneck?  Ha!
Xref: mnetor news.groups:1095 news.misc:646 news.stargate:204 news.sysadmin:247 news.admin:568

[My apologies in advance for quoting so much of Webber's text, but
there are some of his comments that are very far off the mark, and I wish
to address them point-by-point.  I'm also pretty pissed at his
"holier-than-thou" attitude.  If you don't read this whole thing, at
least read the last paragraph.]

In article <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
>Hi.  Over the past month, an attempt was made to find out if there was
>sufficient justification for the creation of an unmoderated sources group
>by the tried and true method of creating a mailing list and seeing if 
>traffic justified it.  Well, traffic justified it.  Indeed with no traffic
>at all, many backbone sites contacted me indicating that it was too much 
>and that I couldn't send anymore through their sites.

First he says there was traffic to warrant it, then he says that there
was no traffic.  Whichever was the case, some of us sent him mail
indicated that he should not use up our bandwidth and storage by
mailing the list through our sites.  Like any other high-volume mail
source or alternate newsgroup, the people wishing to receive those
groups should set up their own links and *pay for it themselves.*
Unfortunately, repeated attempts to explain this to Webber by mail have
resulted in responses of either ignorance about how mail works or
implications that it is our duty to support every mailing list.

>Further, in spite
>of the existance of things like netlib and the way sources get to moderated
>groups, I was assured that mail cannot support such a list without getting
>permission of all the intermediate sites.

Not correct.  No one posts daily requests for the contents of netlib
through my site -- if they did, I'd demand they set up a direct link.
And only a small amount of mail for moderated groups goes through
here.  A mailing list would generate frequent, heavy demands on the
sites with the best connectivity -- like this one.  Again, if the sites
involved paid for their own connectivity, as with direct links or
UUNET, most of us would have no objections and the list could exist
happily without us.

>According to a rumor posted to the net by gnu!gilmore and consistant with
>a similar posting by hao!wood earlier, it would appear that the backbone
>has been poised in favour of such a list for a number of weeks but can't
>get its act together to actually create it.  The mailing list plus vote
>of 100+ would justify it regardless of the question of the wisdom of
>having done the moderation in the first place.  However, no replies have
>resulted from any of the times I have notified spaf@gatech of the size
>of the vote.

Nope.  The last time I heard anything about this, the majority of
backbone sites decided that since two unmoderated sources groups
already exist on alternate backbones, we don't need to carry another
one.  Only a very small and vocal minority seems to want a net-wide
unmoderated trash...er source...  group.  If you want such a group *pay
the damn bills yourselves!* UUNET has offered to carry all the groups
-- if you want it and feel it of value, pay for it!  Otherwise, try to
find one of the sites currently carrying the old "net.sources" or new
"alt.sources" groups and talk them into paying to feed your site.

>The interesting question is how could such a vote be ignored.  The answer
>is that the backbone is not a governing agency of usenet, but is rather
>the collection of sites that spaf@gatech tends to interact with regularly.

Nope.  The "backbone" is actually the admins (and former admins) of
sites listed in the monthly backbone listing.  The reasons those sites
are there is explained in the text of the posting.  And you are correct
-- we are not a governing agency.  We are a group of individuals who
sometimes agree on certain things, who respect each other's opinions
(usually), and who have a very large collective amount of experience
with news and mail.  Many site admins go along with us because they
believe we do a reasonable job.  Others have some idea of the costs
and amount of effort we expend to feed them mail and news reliably and
they understand we have to draw the line somewhere. (Example: gatech
ships almost 3Mb of news and mail per *day*.  We maintain well over 100
major uucp contacts and 30 news feeds, and we are the main mail and
news feed for at least 3 states.  You think you know better how to run
this site and use our resources?)

The group is not defined by people I talk with, nor is there some
formal organization.  However, I don't bother to list a group in
the list of active groups if the majority of backbone sites don't
carry it -- because the propagation of such a group is hardly
going to be net-wide.


>Sine the Usenet is an anarchy in which everyone can do whatever they want 
>one would presume the above was not a necessarily bad thing.  However, 
>since the vast majority of the net wish to appear reasonable and civilized 
>and fear any kind of united opposition from the net, this means that as 
>long as they are getting something from their connection to Usenet, they 
>won't squawk too loudly as they loose more and more bit by bit.  However, 
>these fears are groundless, since the backbone sites have neither the 
>time nor organization to actually control the entire Usenet in the face of
>determined reasonable opposition.  

1) Usenet is, in many ways an anarchy.  That means we do with our site as
the admins here decide best.  No one else (like you) decides that for us.
2) You are assuming that the vast majority of the net is dissatisfied and
afraid to comment.  You are undoubtedly wrong -- like any society, the
majority just don't give a damn.  
3) We don't have an organization or control, nor do we really want
any.  I want to get the majority of useful groups here, I want reliable mail,
and I won't pay to carry groups that are largely worthless locally or
at sites nearby.  Carry whatever groups you want.
4) Are you suggesting you are reasonable?

>Thus, what the net needs is a `net ombudsman' whose purpose is to minimize 
>the empact on the net of some of the more foolish actions we have seen 
>recently.  Until others volunteer to cover this duty, I will be handling 
>it.  Just as in the case of the backbone, it is possible for any site to 
>go its own way and completely ignore what I do.  However, just as with 
>the backbone, I will try and make sure that it is easier for them to go 
>along.  [Incidently, co-ombudspeople are also welcome.] 

Yup.  Figures.  "The sky is falling, and I can save you.  Since you
are too stupid to recognize the threat, I will appoint myself your
savior."  Thank you, Bob.  I am much relieved.  And how pleasant
to know that you will make it easy for me if I "go along."
(BTW, it's "impact".)

>My first action is to address the problem of net moderation.  

"My first action as your new savior is...my pet peeve."

>The problem is that for certain topics, there is no reasonable alternative 
>to posting to a moderated group.

Thank heavens!

>Usenet has traditionally been unmoderated.  

Yup.  And drunk drivers have traditionally killed thousands of people,
and oppression of minorities is a world-wide tradition, and war
certainly seems to be a tradition, and....  Gee, for the good old days!
Because it's traditional, it must be best.

>While the creation of moderated groups is plausible for certain low traffic
>topics, the attempt to use them as replacements for previous large unmoderated 
>groups is unsupportable.

Au contraire!  People are using those groups, and I know of many people
who have resubscribed to groups that were overwhelmed with drivel and
noise as unmoderated groups.  I think that makes plenty of sense.

Here's a challenge: create an alternate backbone for unmoderated
versions of those groups.  I'll post a bi-weekly posting along with the
regular list of groups and list of mailing lists telling people about
it and how they can connect up (using their own funds, of course).
We'll give it a fair trial -- say 6 months?  Which set of groups do you
think will have more readers?  Care to guess which set would get the
axe first at most places if there was a squeeze for disk space?

>While there are clearly people who prefer moderation, 
>this does not justify taking away the unmoderated group from the mass of 
>people who were happy with what was going on....

How do you know they were happy?  How do you know they are now less happy?
The majority of site admins who have sent me mail seem to be happier
since the wave of conversions.  

>My solution: if someone sends me a message that seems to me to be relevant 
>to a moderated group where there is no unmoderated alternative, I will post
>it there.  

Right.  "I don't like the system, so send stuff to me and I'll
break into groups where I wasn't invited and post stuff the moderator
didn't feel appropriate to the group.  After all, I'm the net-savior
and *I* know what belongs in all the groups!"  Thanks, Bob.  I feel
even more relieved now.

>	...I reserve the right to
>                 reject postings without explanation.  

Right.  You'll do exactly the things a moderator does, only because
you're "special" it's okay, and besides, no one is allowed to question
it.

>         2) The message will not be edited, if it is below standard for the 
>         group I send it to, that is the author's problem.  

...and if it is utter crap, then it is the readers' problem because they
subscribed to a moderated group, right Bob?  "They deserve it."

> 4) The moderators of groups I post to will not be contacted prior to 
>         the posting. 

Right -- it's not a good idea to find out if there was a good reason
not to post it in the first place, right?  I mean -- if the moderator
rejected it, it must have been because moderation is inherently evil.
Besides, as "net-savior" Mr. Webber knows better!

>While the above may seem somewhat arbitrary, I have noticed that it works well 
>for the backbone and am not inclined to change until experience shows 
>otherwise.  However, because I am a busy person, I will take the time to 
>actually go through the list of moderated groups and indicate which ones I 
>view as subject to postings from me in my role as Ombudsman and which groups 
>have legitimate unmoderated alternatives.

Bullshit!  When has any backbone admin posted to a moderated newsgroup
that they were not the moderator of?  And..."your experience" ...
"legitimate unmoderated alternatives"?  Does anyone else share this
lofty view of your abilities?

[Bob then gave a list of newsgroups he thinks are equivalent, showing
a pretty firm lack of grasp on reality.  This included equivalencing
a number of binary groups to talk bizarre, equivalencing the fidonet
group to the ibm pc group, equivalencing the OS research group to the
architecture group, and so on.  Some picks must have been made based on
the number of letters in the group names....]

>Incidently, [this] is going to the stargate group because stargate is in the 
>process of trying to replace the backbone and they are planning on carrying 
>only the moderated groups (and hence a rather lengthy discussion of moderation
>has already occurred there).  

Wrong again.  The stargate folks are trying to provide an alternate
distribution mechanism, not a replacement for the net.  Anyone interested
in details should contact the Stargate folks directly or perhaps
actually *read* some of this things they've posted.

>As things settle 
>out, a revised copy will appear in those places where moderators are in 
>control of the only reasonable outlet for a discussion.  

And who might post that?  Could it be the moderators?  Noooo.  Could it
be SATAN!?  (oops, wrong schtick.  sorry.)  No, I guess it might be
Bob himself.  Isn't that special?  Bob is going to merrily go
about the net posting his huge articles against moderation in any
group that he thinks deserves them.  Wanna bet a whole bunch of
webber-filters get put into place all over the net real-soon-now?
Want to bet that people at Rutgers will get all sorts of mail
should such a thing happen?  Can you say "shit" and "fan"?


I could go on at length because I'm so pissed, but I won't.  Many of us
have tried to explain in mail to Mr. Webber about things like limited
budgets, Arpa discussion lists and politics, alternate backbones, and
so on, but he seems to believe that the 80 or 90+ backbone admins and
moderators, representing at least 250+ years of net experience, are all
wrong and he is right and should be the one to decide these things.  He
also seems to believe that the admins and users of the net are stupid
cowards because they aren't storming the walls of Cabal Castle,
demanding the heads of all within (mine in particular, I guess, since
I'm the only one he specifically named).  Obviously, he holds himself
above rule and convention, and believes his judgement better than that
of everyone else.  Many people joke about the "net-gods" but I doubt
that anyone takes it seriously.  I know I don't -- few of us are over
8' tall or are able to throw lightning bolts.  And I don't think any of
us are anywhere near so arrogant to post in somebody else's moderated
group without permission.


Here's another offer:  I'm about to leave Georgia Tech to join the CS
faculty at Purdue (yes, I have a real life and a real career and a real
degree).  I've volunteered to keep the database for the Net for the
last 4.5 years.  I've tried to help keep the Usenet alive by helping to
guide its growth, and by trying to help temper some of the hastier
actions.  Meantime, I've gotten a lot of abuse, much of it in the last
couple of months after the reorganization (probably because I am one of
the more "visible" persons on the net).  So here's the offer:  send me
mail if you think I'm doing a rotten job at what I'm doing and/or you
think the net is worse off under the current organization.  CC it to
webber to make him feel better about not being the only one to think
that way.  On the other hand, if you think maybe I'm doing a "good
thing" and/or the net is perhaps headed in the right direction, send me
mail about that too (and CC it to webber).  I may decide to drop off
the net after my move, and the mail I get may help me decide.  (webber
is at webber@brandx.rutgers.edu, or gatech!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber)

Who says we don't listen? :-)
-- 
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
Internet:	spaf@gatech.gatech.edu
uucp:	...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!spaf