Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!decvax!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel From: noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Cabal Message-ID: <303@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> Date: 7 Apr 89 15:50:47 GMT References: <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <28375@apple.Apple.COM> <3045@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) Organization: uBBS-NH (New England Unix Archive) - Nashua, NH Lines: 65 In article <3045@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Is 5 too small? My original thought was 11, but I think that would >cause too much noise within UNLAB. Any attempt to limit "membership" to 5 or 11 or any limited number is totally wrong. If "membership" is to be limited at all, it should be limited to site administrators, regardless of site, size, geographic location etc. >As I have always stated, the real principle of usenet "power" (heavy use >of quotes) derives from who pays the bills to feed the information around. >(Smaller amounts of usenet "power," derived from the above, include >that of moderators and authors of networking freeware.) Right! and no matter what, thats the way it will remain. >So of course, the decision to carry groups is one that is made by sysadmins >of non-leaf sites. I have always said this, although perhaps not as >explicitly as that. I'm a so-called "leaf" site, but I pass mail, feed others etc. I'm to be excluded because I'm not running a mainframe? >So we could have a committee of 300 or so site admins. But the question >I asked was, "do these site admins *want* to sit on such a committee?" > >I felt no. I felt such sysadmins would rather delegate that power off >to some other people they trust. I do not feel that unreliable polls >of general readership were the sort of thing the question should be >delegated to. So I thought up the UNLAB idea. Who's holding the gun to their heads? I'm beginning to like my two tier idea more and more. The usenet readership at large votes for the establishment or removal of a newsgroup. The vote is then passed to the "cabal" as a recommendation, who then vote collectively on the issue. No guns, site administrators who desire to be involved in the process merely vote, no registration, no limitations on "membership" etc. Authetication of the site administrators "right" to vote could be done by ensuring that the vote is posted by "root" or "news" etc. Yes, someone does have to validate and count the votes, some bogus ones are sure to slip in but I doubt it would be a significant number. And their would be no need for discussion among the site administrators. The discussion having already taken place by the users. Just a yeah/nay vote. >It is the last requirement that selected the number 5. I doubt good >people would want to sit on a board of 25 members or more, unless >discussion was very limited. A number from 5 to 11 allows serious >discussion to take place in a friendly atmosphere without swamping >the members. I doubt that 5 or 25 could ever truly discuss anything in a "friendly" environment. Let the users vote, argue, flame etc. Let the site administrators as a whole decide! Noel -- Noel B. Del More | {decvax|harvard}!zinn!ubbs-nh!noel 17 Meredith Drive | noel@ubbs-nh.mv.com Nashua, New Hampshire 03063 | It's unix me son! `taint spozed tah make cents