Xref: utzoo news.groups:18198 news.admin:8405
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: A USENet domain (was Re: Domain Charters)
Message-ID: <38983@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 90 21:31:35 GMT
References: <_.W1K12xds8@ficc.uu.net> <1990Feb23.202301.3363@everexn.uucp> <38951@apple.Apple.COM> <11012@saturn.ADS.COM>
Organization: Fictional Reality: where your dreams can come true
Lines: 64

xanthian@saturn.ADS.COM (Metafont Consultant Account) writes:

>In article <38951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>[...]

>>If you want formal charters, the best thing to do would be to
>>seriously consider a Great Renaming, where the entire namespace is
>>rethought and stuff Put In Its Place. That'll be a way to figure out
>>what domains need to exist, how to define them and what belongs in
>>them, and would be the only want to get a consensus opinion on
>>things. Then all we'd need to do is implement it.

>I'm not at all sure how important this is, but I had noticed a great
>lack of symmetry in the current newsgroup namespace which might lend a
>small impetus to another Great Renaming.

I'm not sure we're ready for a Great Renaming. I started looking at it late
last year and then we definitely weren't ready. But I think we probably
ought to think about it because by deciding what we want out of a Great
Renaming we can decide what's right and wrong with USENET today -- and
perhaps be able to make the important changes without ripping it all apart
and putting it back together again. At least, we'll understand where we are
adn where we want to be, which is a step on the path towards getting there.

>Is it perhaps time to exhibit an overdue bit of humility, to recognize
>the current realities, and to subsume the USENet domains under a
>single, network identifying toplevel name (maybe "usenet"), just to
>help folks sort out which newsgroups actually fall under the USENet
>newsgroup rules, as opposed to the groups falling under rules for
>other networks?

Actually, I'd go the other direction and make each top-level domain somewhat
autonomous, with (perhaps) its own steering committee or oversee
person/group, it's own version of news.announce, its own versioon of
news.groups and etc. Arguably, the net is big enough now that the people who
are qualified to make decisions about what belongs in comp.* are not the
same people who are best qualified to decide about sci.* or rec.*. (and,
also obviously, there are a LOT of issues to be resolved in that
not-yet-proposal, like how to deal with something that is ambiguous on what
group is best for it, or for something that simply doesn't fit well -- there
has to be some way of deciding what domain, then a way of deciding a place
within that domain.)

>That much work probably requires a nearly full time individual, which
>may require funding by either a government agency or a concerned
>organization; we should probably also grant that individual before we
>start final authority to make all group placement/naming decisions.
>[I doubt the ability to do such a task by consensus, in this or any
>other group.  Design by committee is a known losing mechanism.]

I dunno. The last renaming went by committee and with lots of feedback.
Ultimately someone had to make final decisions, but it was definitely by
consensus. The current c.s.m reorganization is strongly consensual and is
looking less and less like my original proposal as time goes on (and better
and better, I might add). Someone (or group of someones) has to make final
decisions, but "design by committee" is not inherently bad; "design by a
committed unwilling to make a decision" is bad.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>   chuq@apple.com   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

I don't know what's scarier: President Reagan saying he had no inkling of 
his aides doing anything illegal, or an ex-president who uses the word inkling.