Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET? Message-ID: Date: 6 Feb 90 15:04:33 GMT References: <5633@barn.COM> <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 97 In-Reply-To: henry@utzoo.uucp's message of 5 Feb 90 22:46:37 GMT In article <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes: I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own subject, rules, and distribution. ...the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already getting ridiculous. Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to. Call it fine-grained control, with easier distinctions (and shorter sys lines) than saying ...,pheugh,!pheugh.all,pheugh.barre,!pheugh.barre.all,... Folks who blindly request a `full feed' can just say "...,all,..." and not think about it any more than they do now. This is already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it will be an administrative nightmare. We need to discourage this silly empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into the existing structure. This may well require some changes in rules; Not just rules, but the cultural paradigms they embody as well. ...some sort of procedure for delegating name-space management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just *have* to have their own hierarchy... Proposals? We already have a delegation procedure, at the top level of the heirarchy. (My opinion is that they are usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.) Until there is a finer grained name-space delegation procedure that's easily managed and comprehended, it is a significant issue. ...suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome... Right. 2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy... Why? The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours. Right. Those who want to go to the trouble can look at already exists and what already works, pick and choose, and adopt what they like for their own purposes. It's a very gentle, distributed process of self-determination. Those that don't work quietly wither on the vine. 4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy, That's already done with Spaf's List of Alternative Heirarchies. As explained above, I'd say we want to *discourage* more silly growth at the top level. It serves no useful purpose and just creates problems. Avoiding problems is better than solving them. If a group of people wants to run a news heirarchy their way, why force them to fold into the mainstream Usenet and run things our way? Enforced conformity doesn't avoid problems, it causes them (consider Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia!). I sure wouldn't want to try to force the Usenet to conform to (e.g.) Stallman's or Sexton's or MES' vision of what the world should be like! For example: In discussions of upcoming cross-cultural encounters (GEnie/Usenet, FIDO/Usenet, Compu$erve/Usenet, etc.) it is often pointed out that in each case the two should be given access to each other, but not forcibly intermixed in each other's forms and forums. Each side of the gateway should be able to clearly see that the new traffic shouldn't be expected to conform to the old rules. This is best accomplished with top-level naming to emphasize the distinction. On the Usenet side, traffic flow can be controlled with distributions but user awareness comes best with group names. (How many average users know whether something is a comp group or an inet group? Do you really want C$'s UNIX forum intermixing with comp.unix.questions?) This isn't just snobbery, it's an aid to understanding why groups of people act the way they do. In due time the BBSers may bring themselves up to Usenet's exalted level of wisdom and rationality of discourse (for the humor impaired: :-) and petition to be admitted fully and truly into the fold, but don't push things too fast. With a few years' practice, I've even begun seeing rational commentary coming from Portal! Convenient creation and propagation of new heirarchies serves useful purposes and solves problems. Don't expect conformity to Usenet's way of running things.