Thread View: bit.admin
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Karen Burton
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00
Administrative authority over the bit.* hierarchy
Author: Karen Burton
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00
62 lines
3831 bytes
3831 bytes
On October 21, 1999 in message <380F5C58.7879DA41@medctr.osu.edu> posted to bit.admin "Mike Holloway" (holloway@concentric.net) wrote: > <snip> > The American University mail to news gateway has been down > for nearly two years now. Newsguy.com (mike@newsguy.com) > has very generously volunteered to take it over. However, they > do not been given admin authority over the bit hierarchy, as had > been promised over a year ago by AU. I've been trying to make > some contact with someone at AU, but no e-mail has been > answered. > > Are you the listowner for RAILROAD? Do you know of any other > lists still gating to a bit group? Perhaps we need to organize. > <snip> I urge everyone NOT to support any effort that would place administrative authority over the bit.* hierarchy in, or near, the hands of Mike Holloway. Holloway is a co-owner of the TRNSPLNT email list which gates to bit.listserv.transplant. That list and newsgroup are forums for discussions related to human organ transplantation. Currently, contentious policy issues, particularly regarding the allocation/distribution of scarce organs, divide the transplant community. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services is attempting to implement reforms to correct inequities in the current U.S. transplant system. Those reforms are being resisted by a faction within the transplant system which benefits from the "status quo." Though, theoretically, the TRNSPLNT email list is a forum for patients and "others interested in the issues," in fact, that email list, moderated by Holloway, is controlled by a faction of the transplant community which is resisting change. The bit.listserv.transplant newsgroup, being UNmoderated (at least for now), has become a "bit" of a problem for those folks. During my 1.5 years of subscribing to TRNSPLNT, I have observed the manipulation of the gates between the email list and USENET. The most recent example occurred approx. 2.5 weeks ago when FEW messages from the list were gated to bit.listserv.transplant (in mid-1998 that list-to-news gateway was moved from AU to newsguy.com). I suspected an attempt was being made to "choke off" the unmoderated newsgroup and to force all interested parties to subscribe to the moderated/censored email list. Since Holloway does not respond to my emails, on Oct 7, I posted a message <19991007212512.05990.00000432@ng-ch1.aol.com> to that effect on bit.listserv.transplant and began manually posting all non-gated list messages to the newsgroup. That continued for several days until Mr. Holloway resumed gating messages from the list to the newsgroup. I believe Holloway's eagerness, at this time, to move administrative authority for the bit.* hierarchy from AU to newsguy.com may be due to a hope that, after the move, he will be able to bring bit.listserv.transplant under the same control he exercises over the TRNSPLNT email list. This matter is particularly important since patients (I am not a patient) are at the mercy of transplant centers and transplant physicians both for their extensive medical needs and for information on the current controversial issues. Understandably, most patients are reluctant to question what they are being told, let alone to offer a critical opinion. That's why keeping the bit.listserv.transplant newsgroup unmoderated is so important. Karen Burton
Re: Administrative authority over the bit.* hierarchy
Author: nospam
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00
59 lines
3624 bytes
3624 bytes
>The move of administrative authority from AU to Newsguy *should* happen,
>because AU doesn't appear to want it. The hierarchy right now is
>basically not maintained, which is bad for everyone in the hierarchy.
>
>Or maybe we should just create a new hierarchy for gated mailing lists, an
>idea that's bounced around a few places from time to time.
Do you know of any group of people interested in starting such a hierchy? It
would, of course, have the same problem as alt groups: propagation. I'm
pretty certain though that Newsguy would host.
Has anyone had any luck getting a response from AU within the last year? It
would be in their interests to get rid of all responsibility for this last
remain vestige of Jim McIntosh's work. Once they've transferred authority
they no longer have to deal with anything having to do with it. I think they
understand that, or at least they used to. Below is the last post out of AU
on the subject that I'm aware of. It's well past time guys. Come on.
> From: pmod@american.edu (Peter M. O'Donnell)
> Subject: Re: Admin authority for bit.listserv.* groups moving?
> Date: 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT
> Message-ID: <6rrupl$m54$1@supernews.com>
> References: <35ddb050.255445268@news.cris.com>
> X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
> X-Trace: 903970421 IIN0V791AEFA 9309C usenet78.supernews.com
> Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here
> Newsgroups: bit.admin
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> nospam@nospam.com wrote:
> : Now that Newsguy is taking over the gateway duties from American Univerisity,
> : does anyone know if admin authority is needed for changing, or deleting,
> : bit.listserv groups created by American University? If so, can that
> : authority be transferred?
>
> once we decide that everything is in good order, i will be happy to
> give the keys to whoever at newsguy. until then, we (i) remain the sole
> keyholder for the signatory stuff.
>
> : I'll keep posting this at regular intervals. No one's answered past
> : inquiries, and no response has been forthcoming from American University for
> : several weeks now.
>
> just ask, we'll respond. we have been *very* busy. the mainframe
> isn't scheduled to go away until the end of april 1999, so we have some time
> to get everything in line.
> oh, and if you are reading and care---
>
> WE ARE GETTING A NEW MACHINE TO HOST LISTSERV ON!!!!!!
> YEEEE!!!!
>
> - --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Peter M. O'Donnell } pmod@american.edu { "Cynicism was my whiskey
> Unix Systems Administrator{-------------------------} and I had a few..."
> "Clickity-Clickity" } 202-885-3806 { -Bruce McCulloch
> ******************************************************************************
> *********************** http://www.abs.net/~pmod/mydad/ **********************
Re: Administrative authority over the bit.* hierarchy
Author: Adam H. Kerman
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:00
26 lines
2075 bytes
2075 bytes
nospam@nospam.net wrote: >>The move of administrative authority from AU to Newsguy *should* happen, >>because AU doesn't appear to want it. The hierarchy right now is >>basically not maintained, which is bad for everyone in the hierarchy. >>Or maybe we should just create a new hierarchy for gated mailing lists, an >>idea that's bounced around a few places from time to time. >Do you know of any group of people interested in starting such a hierchy? It >would, of course, have the same problem as alt groups: propagation. I'm >pretty certain though that Newsguy would host. >Has anyone had any luck getting a response from AU within the last year? It >would be in their interests to get rid of all responsibility for this last >remain vestige of Jim McIntosh's work. Once they've transferred authority >they no longer have to deal with anything having to do with it. I think they >understand that, or at least they used to. Below is the last post out of AU >on the subject that I'm aware of. It's well past time guys. Come on. We are trying to have a serious conversation here about restarting the gateway and the bit.* hierarchy. Given that you will not post with an e-mail address in your From header at which you could be contacted, you are not helping at all. This is the wrong type of thread to pull that nonsense in.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads