Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!davidbe From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one Message-ID: <2147@viscous.sco.COM> Date: 29 Mar 89 22:14:01 GMT References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <3011@looking.UUCP> Sender: news@sco.COM Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (Scovert Operations) Lines: 111 brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) said: - -I propose the creation of the 'Usenet Newsgroup List Advisory Board' (UNLAB). -Unlab would consist of 5 people drawn from a pool. Each month, the oldest -member of the board (the chair) would rotate off and a new person -would rotate on. Nobody would control the board or be able to stay on -it for long. 5 people to decide what an audiance of tens of thousands of people will read? What ever happened to input from outside sources? Also, if you keep rotating people in, rather than get a stabilizing force for the net (as you seem to want), you'll start to get a constantly changing policy from UNLAB. -Now I see two ways for UNLAB to give its advice on changes to the -newsgroup list. - - 1) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. If they are unanimous, - the group is created, by them, after a short discussion. - - If they are not unanimous, UNLAB holds a survey. The question, - written by the UNLAB chair, is posted to "news.groups," a MODERATED - group. Survey replies go to an automatic counting program - run by UNLAB on an central machine. The survey lasts as long as - UNLAB wants, I would suggest 14 days is plenty. It's just a - survey. - - UNLAB examines the survey results as they see fit. No hard and - fast rules, although general guidelines like the ones we have - now might guide their decisions. They vote. Majority decides. Ok...here we encounter a number of points I disagree with. 1) You're giving an advisory board powers over the creation of newsgroups for the entire net? I don't want to depend on the whim of whichever 5 people happen to be in charge at the time. 2) news.groups should NOT be moderated. Yes, there is a lot of volume here, but there's also a lot of feedback and good ideas for what groups might be good, might be bad, and where to go to discuss a particular topic. 3) Who would moderate the new news.groups? Are you going to be changing the moderator every month? Not everyone has the time to moderate a group, but DO want to participate in the health and well-being of the net. Or would you give moderation powers to someone not involved with the process (thus allowing for politicing by the moderator). -or - 2) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB. Unless they are unanimously - AGAINST it, it gets created. (If they are unanimously against, - a survey might be taken if the applicant appeals.) - - The groups is create on a trial basis. A set of randomly selected - arbitron running sites will send arbitron reports to UNLAB officials. - If the readership reaches suitable levels (decided by UNLAB, but - the same for all groups) within 4-6 months, the group stays. - Otherwise the axe falls. Here's where complete anarchy (to use the euphamistic term, rather than the definition) really begins. You'll begin to get people mailing to the members of UNLAB saying "Please create this group!". The potential for computerized hell for the members of UNLAB will begin to approach that of real life politicians. Especially during those 5 months when someone of the belief "If someone wants a newsgroup, then they should have it." is a member. There are people out there who believe this, remember. It will happen. -Membership: - UNLAB membership would be open to sysadmins with 3 or more years - of usenet experience. Each new member would be drawn from a - pool of volunteers. The drawing would be random, and done by - a non-member who has signed an oath to execute the choices - randomly. (Or pseudo randomly, since it would be done by - software.) Here's my favorite part. Do you mean "(sysadmin > 3) and (usenet exp > 3)" or do you mean "(sysadmin > 3) or (usenet exp > 3) if you have some of both". Are you going to deny membership to those folks who have hacked the news software to pieces, participated heavily on the net, and keep in touch with people all over the world simply because they've only been doing that for a year? And are you going to allow someone with who's been reading the net for 3 years and just got their own machine to be on the board? Hell, for that matter, just what *is* usenet experience? Reading? Posting? Coding? Moderating? -Now I personally, as a sysadmin, would trust this more than the -random, self-selected, biased noisy polls we see now. What about you? -Think of it. No noise, no arguments, no sticky procedure. I wouldn't. I *like* the noisy polls we see now. I don't see them as inherently biased. For all the groups that have been created that you might not like, a number have also NOT been created, and a number have also never gotten off the ground. Under your plan, rec.music.rock (which I am almost violently opposed to) would probably have been created. Because of the voting policy, it did not get created. While others may not agree, I see this as a good thing. -I will write up a formal set of rules for the board later if people -like this idea. Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway) I don't like this idea. It creates bueracracy, politicizing and chaos. It also does not represent the will of those who care about the net, and keeps those who can and will do the best job from doing so. It's just not a good idea. -- David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.