Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!loquat!karl
From: karl@loquat.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: There isn't even a `backbone' alias any more
Summary: Replacement mailing list being formed; interested, anyone?
Message-ID: <171@loquat.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 1 Oct 88 05:56:02 GMT
References: <22931@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4996@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Ohio State Computer & Info Science
Lines: 142
In-reply-to: spaf@cs.purdue.edu's message of 30 Sep 88 22:42:18 GMT

To all: if you're going to read any of this, I ask that you read all
of it.

spaf@cs.purdue.edu writes:
   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 remember getting your initial note saying you were debating doing
away with it.  I don't recall being told that it would be gone by
thus-and-so a date.  That's not to say such mail didn't arrive - there
were problems with mail delivery to me while I was on vacation over
summer which could have caused some lossage.

I do remember some people answering your original comments with some
good thoughts on why not to do so.  Whether they would have been
called `compelling reasons' is a personal judgment call, but from what
I remember of it, if it had been me, I would have kept it.

   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."

You may resent me saying this (and if so, I apologize in advance), but
I think you are carrying a really large and unhealthy grudge around on
this point.

   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.

I realize that.  That was why I asked that OSU be included in it.  I
have been managing news sites of various sizes for 5 of the 6 years
that I've been on the network, and when OSU became so well-connected,
I felt that we were finally getting a chance to return a favor or
three to the network that had been so useful to us.  As Mel Pleasant
put it during the argument over c.s.w, I wanted us included because I
wanted us to have a say; and we have become sufficiently
well-connected that our loss of only 1 day's operation about 5 weeks
ago was described by one of our news neighbors as having caused a
`pathological news flow disruption' (or something like that; the exact
words escape me just now).  That news neighbor is no lightly-connected
site, either.  Hence, there was (and is) a good reason why we should
have some sort of say.

I didn't consider `membership' in the backbone list to give us any
power of any kind - I just considered that it gave us opportunity to
have a say.  And I did take that opportunity several (3? 4?) times.

   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.

The problem with the size of the group was that there was no means by
which to remove people/sites which did not participate actively in the
purposes for which the list existed.  I intend to rectify that problem.

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

I agree that it needs a directing force; I disagree that a mechanism
*something like* the backbone list is defunct.

The chaos in news.* is testament to the need.  The deepest problem
was, as far as I can see, exactly what you stated in a note earlier
this week - that Usenet administrators, notably those on the old
backbone list, don't keep track of what's going on via news.*, nor any
other means, I suppose.  That irritates me greatly: To find that
people running the Usenet at such major hosts just can't seem to be
bothered with the details of what people think of the Usenet.  Small
wonder that there was a lot of irritation in the waning months of the
backbone list over arbitrary control of the net by it.

Yes, there's a lot of crap out there; that's the cost of managing a
large node in a huge network.  Those who haven't got the time to keep
track of the network should not be in the set of people trying to
provide the intended direction and advice.  And I (obviously?) do not
mean merely the technical side of `keeping track of the network,' but
also the social and sort-of-political side as well.

   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?

I agree *completely* that lots of discussion should take place in
news.admin.  For that reason, I oppose moderation of news.admin - I
wish everyone's voice to be heard if they have something to say.  And
I am willing to wade through the excess as best I can when I see
overload conditions coming.

However, there are a number of people out there who have been doing
major, significant Usenet management for a long time, whose opinions
and experience can still be used to the net's advantage.  These people
ought to have somewhere to discuss ongoing events, and at least
attempt to come up with a consensus which could then be offered to the
net-at-large.  This ought to be a place away from the usual totally
noisy news.admin.  NOT `private' - but somewhat more quiet, a place to
think more carefully.

Thus, I am recreating the backbone list, but then it's not the
backbone list.  I don't even have a decent name for it yet - I will
*not* call it `backbone.'  I was thinking of `admin-news,' since
that's what it's about, or possibly `well-connected'; I haven't
decided.  Someone suggested `net-direction,' but that implies a
certain power which the list is not expected to have.

The nature of this list will be different from the old backbone list.
Membership will be at the request of those wishing to be involved, as
before.  Continued existence in the alias file will be based on the
evidence of ongoing participation, that is, one can be on this list if
one demonstrates with a certain regularity that one is thinking about
the Usenet and contributing to the set of ideas for how to keep it
running.  Part of that, in my opinion, is a certain presence in
news.*.  Not necessarily all of news.*; just a subset demonstrating
that the EKG and EEG aren't flat.  Tracking only news.admin is almost
certainly sufficient, or some other group in which an individual
wishes to `specialize.'  Also, I tend to be inclined more to news
admins at sites which operate a substantial number of newsfeeds, since
they invariably understand much better than most leaf node admins I've
known the problems of heavy load, multiple connections, and all those
sorts of problems.  A point of importance: I intend to set a policy
for the list of positively no flaming whatever; that one flame
containing obscenities, personal attacks, or general insult of any
kind are grounds for immediate removal.  I include that quality
expressly because of the problems that the backbone list caused you
personally, Gene, during the argument over c.s.w.  Also, I am emphatic
that I will post periodic (monthly?) summaries of activity in this
list, to emphasize the non-private nature of the list, so that anyone
and everyone who wants to know can be aware of the discussion which
takes place there.

At this time, I wish to formally invite any and all news admins out
there who think they might be interested, who think they have
sufficient knowledge and experience, who can afford to invest the time
and energy in contributing to a forum like this, to become
participants in the list.  Drop me a note and I'll get the list
started within a few days.

--Karl