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: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one Message-ID: <304@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> Date: 7 Apr 89 16:10:16 GMT References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <445@flatline.UUCP> <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <4833@inco.UUCP> <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <4862@inco.UUCP> Reply-To: noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) Organization: uBBS-NH (New England Unix Archive) - Nashua, NH Lines: 76 In article <4862@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: >In article <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel Del More) writes: >> >>What you say is indeed true, however, it is the administrators that >>allocate system resources, pay the bills and put up the occassional grief >>in order to support usenet and its readers. >> >>This is fact, regardless of the size of the system involved. > >True, but changing the voting procedure will not alleviate any of those >burdens and will probably make the problems worse, not better. Right now, >all a news admin really needs to worry about is who approved the newgroup >message. If it was somebody like Gene Spafford or Greg Woods and the path >looks reasonable, it's OK. If they really hate the group, or feel that >they shouldn't carry it for some reason, fine, no one can force them to, >but that's a local decision. The point I am trying to make is... If their is to be a change in the manner in which groups are created/deleted, then I as a site administrator want to be involved. >The proposed news-admin-only approach means that news admins have to >deal with a mailing list, which will, I guarantee, be as flame-filled >as news.groups currently is, *and* with the local users who can no longer >take it directly to the net. The first problem can be alleviated by >simply ignoring the mailing list, but the second won't go away. See my posting in reply to Brad's current article. In summary, their is no need for the site administrators who want to be involved in the process to discuss anything. Let the users vote.. Let the site administrators decide. Yeah/Ney is the only thing required. >As far as I can see, this approach will piss off 90+% of the net and >create additional burdens for the news admins. Everybody loses. It >seems like a bad idea. It may be a bad idea, it may piss off 90+% of the net. But if it is going to be changed.... I damned sure don't want 5 guys deciding the future of usenet. >>Perhaps a two tier approach should be considered, the first tier being >>composed of the readers, the second being system administrators who would >>then vote collectively upon the recommendations of the readers. > >The system you're proposing currently exists, except that news admins >don't do it collectively, they do it individually. The interested members >of the net vote, then each admin decides whether or not to honor the >vote. If a sufficient number of news admins decide not to carry the >group, the fragmentation is sufficient to kill the group off except >in small pockets. Yes, and the site admins can still do that, but a two tier vote does two things. It allows the individual the opportunity to have his/her voice heard. It allows the site administrators who decide to be involved in the process the right to act collectively to validate the decision. I'll say it one more time.. If this proposal were to pass, do you want 5 or 25 people to decide the future of usenet? Would you rather have the ability to vote as a user, and have a larger number of site administrators pass final judgement and give it their "blessing"? If you stop to think about it.. my proposal is very much like most governments. No, if its gotta change let it be two tier, and without restrictions as to the number of site administrators involved. 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