Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!mailrus!purdue!spaf
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: There isn't even a `backbone' alias any more
Message-ID: <4996@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 30 Sep 88 22:42:18 GMT
References: <22931@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 43

I sent mail to everyone on the backbone mailing list telling them it
was going away unless I got compelling reasons not to delete it.
I didn't get any.  That was over 3 months ago.

I deleted the "backbone" list for a number of reasons.  First,
it did not reflect the true composition of the sites making up the
backbone.  With NNTP and Telebit modems, the true "backbone" is
far larger than we could accomodate in the list.  Second, with
the "Balkanization" of the Usenet (to use Erik Fair's terminology),
the role of the backbone was getting somewhat ill-defined.  Third,
of the 50 or so people on the list, only about 6 or 7 ever bothered
to comment on things or respond to queries.  During the whole
flap over comp.[society.]women, I got only 11 responses to a poll
about how to proceed. A simple majority of 11 is 6; the opinion of
6 people is not a very good weight to use in making decisions for
the Usenet community.  That's especially true when some of those
people start threatening rmgroup wars, or express attitudes like
"So what if they're a significant majority -- we're the bakcbone."
I don't think that's a healthy direction for the Usenet.

The original intent of the backbone group was to provide a pool
of experience for helping reconfigure the network, share ideas, and
give advice on directions.  After a few incidents where a few people
started making wild suggestions, threats and so on, the backbone 
became a kind of symbol of authority for site admins to rally around.
However, with the group growing so large and having such diverse
views, it became almost impossible to reach a consensus view
of what the net should be, thus limiting that role.

Basically, the Usenet has grown out of a "backbone" list and needs
to establish some better directing force.

I agree with the view expressed in an earlier reply -- news.admin
is the place where future such discussions should be held.  If admins
want to exchange mail amongts themselves, they can do so easily
enough.  In the meantime, let's listen to the concerns and comments
of everyone interested.  Isn't that the philosophy of the Usenet
anyhow?
-- 
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	uucp:	...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf