🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49fu61$a0k@ionews.io.org>, karl mamer <kamamer@io.org> wrote:
>clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

>> In article <4958n3$d3d@felix.junction.net>,
>> Bob nelson <rsnelson@portage.net> wrote:
>> >The problem I have is that Dawn can post: "This is not a cabal", but
>> >the can.* hierarcy seems to be run like one. Dawn can post: "Chris is
>> >not the local Newsgroup Czar", but then you step right into the shoes.

>> Uh, no.  "Cabal" and "Newsgroup Czar" don't quite mean what you think.
>> In fact, they're mutually exclusive.  And neither apply.

>Now maybe I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that *anyone* with
>access to the control news group can issue a newgroup message
>and name that group anything they want. For example, I can issue
>a newgroup rec.arts.godlike_beings.karl or alt.godlike_beings.karl.
>Even though neither group has gone through any kind of voting
>process the latter, as it falls under the alt group, will likely
>be picked up by news admins not hell bent on alt.config. The former, 
>as there was no formal voting process, will likely be picked up by few. 
>In fact, a rmgroup "suggestion" will likely quickly follow, "suggesting" 
>to other news admins that rec.arts.godlike_beings.karl should be removed.
>
>Given that *anyone* can create any damn group they like as long
>as their sysadmin gives them the ability to post to control,
>talk by Bob about a cabal or newsgroup czar is totally pointless.

Well, sorta.  Yes, anyone can issue a control message.  Hartwell just
sent one for can.construction.

The question is whether it will be respected.

In the big 8, it won't be unless you're Tale.  If you're not Tale,
you'll have Tale automatically undo what you did.  Indeed, people with
INN and latest C news usually have their systems tuned to ignore
anything to do with the big 8 unless it comes from Tale.  As to the
"Newgroup Czar" part - Tale is bound by the votes.   He does what
they say.

In alt - unless you've gone by the alt.config process, there's two or
three people who'll probably automatically rmgroup anything you newgroup.
_Very_ few people respect newgroups or rmgroups in alt anyways.  We
ignore them completely, and rely on our users to notice and ask for
groups they want.  There are no votes, no Newgroup Czar.  There are dozens,
sometimes hundreds of newgroup control messages for alt groups per day.
How many really get created at our site?  We average one or three per
_month_.

Can.* is sorta like alt.  The discussion process is in can.config instead
of alt.config.  Except nobody automatically rmgroups undiscussed newgroups.

Unlike alt, and a bit like the big 8, however, there are a couple of
administrators whose newgroup commands are respected by most other
admins in can.*.  But there are no admins who're elevated to the level
of "Newgroup Czar" in either the "follow the vote" sense (there
are no votes) or the "I'm god, do what I say" sense.

Other hierarchies are different.  Clari.* is controlled by Clarinet,
full stop.  bionet.* is controlled by a couple of admins (originally
Eliot Lear, now I'm not sure).  bit.* by American.edu.  uk.*
has a formal voting process.  GNU by EFF (but I'm sure they'll
deny it ;-).  Etc.

Most regionals are like can.*.  Most organizational ones have
"gods".

>If you can't issue control messages from your account, then
>you should give your news admin a very, very good reason
>as to why you should have access to control to create
>newsgroups. Of course, having access to control also gives
>you the ability to remove newsgroup and delete messages.
>Most admins, it seems, might not want the individual users
>to have that. If that's so, shop around, find a provider
>that gives any and all access to control. If not,
>buy your own UNIX box and start your own news system
>and pay someone to feed you news. If neither of those
>are options, then, and here's the beauty of can.config, you've
>got to sweetly convince someone with control access and 
>time in their day to create your group. Chris is, nominally,
>the guy who is willing to take time out of his day to do that.

>Calling him a Czar is kind of a slap in the face to someone
>who is generous enough to waste his time on creating any
>groups at all.

"Newsgroup Czar" is actually the term invented by Chuq von Rospach
when he became the first one.  This was part of the thrashing
around in the very early days of the voting procedure just
after the great renaming of 1986.

It meant "the guy who blindly issued newgroups or rmgroups according
to the vote".  It was created in response to bleats from people saying
"yeah, but even if we vote a group in, the cabal will all refuse
to create it."  Then Chuq stepped in with the promise to create
whatever group that was voted on, whether he liked it or not.

This is the position that Tale now holds.  This is in rather marked
contrast to what "Czar" usually means - autocratic, hereditary
dictator...

[There's a little dog biting my leg, snarling at me about how Tale
is an autocratic hereditary dictator.  I pull my gun, tell the dog
that "but that's not the point here, dimwit!", and shoot the dog.]

Chuq chose the term "Czar" inappropriately.  While Bob probably
meant it to be an insulting slap in the face, it doesn't mean
what he thought, and he was actually correct to use it.  Sorry
Bob ;-)

Bob went on to forward a copy of my posting to Dawn Whiteside
with a demand that the FAQ be updated to agree with it.

Which was a bit of a puzzle, because, as far as I'm concerned,
the FAQ and my posting already agree.

Dawn quite rightly refused to get drawn into politics ;-)

Bob is trying to make a point of some sort.  And he's trying
to be moderately obnoxious about it.  Fortunately for us he's
also being so damn oblique, nobody quite knows what the point
is ;-)  Other than it's obnoxious.  Or he thinks it is, but it
really isn't.  He's trying to be a heretic and get us to yell
for his head.  Sorry to disappoint you Bob.  Or something....
I dunno!  Why are you asking me anyways?  I should be in bed now.

Good night!