Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!rutgers!att!chinet!patrick
From: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: verification of Brad's vote
Message-ID: <8036@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 26 Mar 89 17:03:34 GMT
References: <1989Mar20.181533.22112@utzoo.uucp> <7994@chinet.chi.il.us> <1989Mar25.220248.8669@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 78

In article <1989Mar25.220248.8669@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
  
>It depends on what you mean by "appropriately".  Phrasing the question
>without biasing the result is *not* easy.  Case in point...

Of course it is not easy. One reason I suggested to Karl D. that he leave
Brad's name out of it  as much as possible, if not entirely, is that this is
not a question of Brad versus someone else as moderator of r.h.f. It is a
Usenet policy question. 

Its really no one's business what Brad does with his time and energy except
when the rest of the net is asked to interconnect with him. The only real
question should be how a moderator deals with all those electronic blips
which reach him/her from users wishing to post on the topic at hand. It is
easy enough for someone to say don't send mail to Brad if you don't like
the way he handles what he receives. But I assume the users do not write Brad
*voluntarily*, but only because it is the only authorized way to get a joke
in the group. With his machine being the only way to post to r.h.f., then it
does become the net's business, to a limited extent, what Brad (or any
moderator) does with the submissions received.
 
>This does not mention the important fact that Brad's proposal is to do
>bidirectional gatewaying, i.e. he would also export commercial-network
>submissions to Usenet.  That's *not* a trivial issue; the wording above
>makes it sound like Usenet is being victimized for the benefit of the
>commercial network without any compensation.

Well I have yet to see *anything* from Genie posted by Brad indicating the
management there intends to honor the bidirectional gatewaying. There has
been no written communication from anyone there -- posted by Brad or through
some other access point they may have -- promising to honor such a plan.
It has been just talk -- one sided talk by Brad -- up to this point. Not
a peep from Genie or their attornies or their management.

Not even a single joke so far! If Genie seriously wants to go bidrectional
with Usenet, let *them* show their intentions also. They can establish Brad
with his humor forum over there. Let them offer *us* few jokes via r.h.f.
as a show of intentions. I honestly do not think Genie will permit the
bidirectional path. In an earlier message, I asked Brad to PROVE IT. If
in fact starting tomorrow or sometime soon I see jokes in r.h.f. which are
attributed to someone at Genie 'reprinted with permission of Genie' tagged
on them, well then  I might even ignore the still sort of offensive 
arrangement and say go ahead with it. 

>That's easy to say, but not easy to do.  The correctness of your proposed
>wording is questionable, at the very least.  Similarly, would you really
>expect to get the same results from "should moderators be allowed to make
>money from their Usenet activities?" and "should moderators be compensated
>for the time and effort they invest in Usenet?"?  Picking the "correct"
>question is itself a contentious issue.

Yes, it is hard to select exactly the right phraseology. I would have 
phrased the question a little different than Karl; but I think the question
as he has phrased it is certainly understandable. No, I  would not expect
to get the same results from the 'make money versus be compensated' questions
you indicated. But there is a larger chasm or gap between the questions
Brad posed in (his poll versus reality) and (money versus compensation). 

Moderators should not 'make money' from their Usenet related activities. 
Neither should sysadmins, backbones or others involved. All of the above
should probably be compensated for *direct, out of pocket expenses
attributible to Usenet*, but not for 'time and effort'. And any compensation
for out of pocket expenses should come from the affected users and not the
net as a whole. If some site runs up massive phone bills because they have
agreed to connect to anyone and everyone, then its understandable that the
local phone company has to be paid. The phone company did NOT agree to put
their resources at the net's disposal. To some extent, the site and sysadmin
did. 

'Time and effort' are what Usenet is all about. No compensation available.
If sites with plainly distinquishable expenses like phone bills and computer
repair costs want to say to their users, 'help pay for these costs' then
that should be permitted.

-- 
Patrick Townson 
  patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / US Mail: 60690-1570 (personal zip code)
  FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) /  MCI Mail: 222-4956