🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov11.080047.5744@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
>>Given the estimated readership for netnews, voter participation as a
>>percentage has always been small--and has long been declining.  My own
>>suspicion is that this may be partly the result of poorly informed users,
>>but mostly is the result of the fact that to /most/ readers of netnews,
>>creating or renaming newsgroups just isn't that big of an issue.
>
>I assert that it is another thing entirely.
>
>Many people on the net are ALIENATED by the bovine excrement that 
>passes for newsgroup creation processes. I've watched news.groups
>for a few years now. It's always the same...a small minority of
>people about to endure some onerous decision made by the politics
>of another small minority. 

Dave, you have asserted this again and again, but to date you have
backed it up with nothing but your own superheated prose.  There have
been literally hundreds of votes run according to the guidelines with no
claims of disenfranchisement, and of the few votes which were at all
controversial, only one failed to reach a state of equalibrium within
the guidelines--the notorious rec.aquaria/sci.aquaria vote.  There is
nothing here which even hints at the level of divisiveness reached in
that particular fiasco.  In fact, I think that the *.aquaria episode
strengthened the resolve of many to stick to the guidelines in the
future, since the alternative looked so much worse.

I've watched the net grow from about 30 newsgroups to its present size.
The process has steadily become more democratic, not less.  For example,
at one time there was what was called "The Backbone Cabal." That was
when a couple dozen sysadmins essentially ruled the net by fiat.  The
Cabal would meet--many of them face-to-face, at USENIX conferences--and
decide what was best.  Since they (or their companies and universities,
rather) paid the bills and spent long hours stitching the net together,
the rest of us put up with them, for the most part.

The guidelines have replaced the Cabal, and have expanded control of
the net beyond a few sysadmins--indeed, beyond sysadmins in general--
to a process where /anyone/ /who/ /cares/ /to/ /be/ /involved/ can
have a say.  An admin has no more of a vote than anybody else.

>Most people don't want any part of it. 

Now, calm down, here.  You and I both know that there is no way either
of us can speak for the tens of thousands of rec.music.synth readers (of
which I am one) much less the million-plus netnews readers world-wide.

That's why we have votes.  Do you have a better idea?

>>name, there has been nothing even close to this magnitude of an
>>issue involved here.  Yet it is being argued like a death penalty
>>case.
>
>Because we had a good newsgroup. Then the news.groups people stepped
>in and ruined it. It's that simple.

Ruined what?  Changing the name doesn't "ruin" anything.  I happen
to think that rec.music.makers.synth is a better name.  Even if it
weren't, it is not so egregiously awful to make people abandon the
group.  (BTW, I didn't vote for or against it--I've voted dozens of
times before for various things, but never got around to it this
time around.)

>This is the perception on the other
>side. More and more people are sending mail in support...now I know that
>most of you guys discount this fact as either unprovable nonsense or
>statistical noise...but it's very real to me.

You don't have much experience on the net, then, or else you are
forgetting something that most frequent posters discover rather quickly:
people send E-Mail in support, but post articles in opposition.  If you
think that your mailbox is somehow a more honest reflection of general
opinion, you're likely mistaken.  I've been pretty outspoken in some
newsgroups, and the "attaboy's" I get in the mail usually outnumber the
"you ignorant fool's" ten-to-one.  This, even when I'm getting creamed
in the followup postings! :-)

>And I, for one, am really
>sick and tired of the news.groups politics as it has been.

Believe me, Dave, when I think of "news.groups politics" politics, your
name is now one of the first which comes to mind.

>>There has been no /clear/ violation of the guidelines brought up, nor
>
>But the spirit of them has been violated. A vote which was against the
>*real* will of the net (not the perceived will) has been passed and
>ramroded through.

"...the *real* will of the net."  Please, Dave, be a little more
realistic.  I don't pretend to know the real will of the net, but
until someone comes up with something better, a vote is more likely
to convince me than a few noisy individuals.  I mean, isn't it all
those noisy folks in news.groups who you were grousing about?  Even
quiet people can vote...

The idea that the vote is somehow invalid because too many people
were ignorant of its existance just doesn't wash.  If this were one
of the first votes ever held on the net, you might have an argument.
But there have been hundreds--including the vote for rec.music.synth
several years back (and I /did/ vote for that one).

>They didn't even kiss us first. 

Tee hee.  Don't think you're spreading it a bit thick?

>>be an exception to the guidelines.  This creates the following problem:
>>if we decide to ignore the guidelines without a clear and generally
>>agreed upon rationale for setting them aside in this /specific/ case as
>>opposed to others, we'll have weakened the the guildelines to a major
>>extent.
>
>Yeah, yeah. Not that you don't mean well...but I've heard this before and
>I don't buy it. Next you'll be telling me that it'll be the death of 
>the net to do so...
>
>>[He does]

Well, if you disagree with my argument, at least have the decency to
include it.  I never said the "death" of the net--it would take a
totalitarian coup of several world governments to wipe out the net as a
phenomenon.  But "the" net has split in the past (into the guideline-
free alt.* net and the guideline-based rec,misc,comp... net, although
the guidelines as we know them came somewhat later).  That split was
amicable enough.  I'm not so sure that future splits will be.  I'd hope
that they would occur over something more rational than nitpicks over
the guidelines, however, or I can guarantee that they /won't/ be
amicable.  I prefer that the net grow by evolution and not revolution,
thank you.

>...and I don't buy that either. Human beings are notorious for being 
>flexible when their life depends on it...why not now? BECAUSE
>there's an agenda operating here. 

"When their life depends on it..." Good grief, Dave, what is so life-
threatening about renaming rec.music.synth as rec.music.makers.synth?
Haven't you lost a bit of perspective, here?  And what in the world is
this "agenda operating here" you're talking about?  That's a laugh!  I'm
not a sysadmin, and no one has put me up to this.  My only agenda is
to see the net evolve to greater and greater stature, and not see it
torn down by petty squabbles.

>>In my opinion the best course of action is to amend the guidelines, if
>>that is necessary, but keep on following them in any case.  I suspect
>>that the majority of news admins would agree with me on this.  
>
>And it is my theory that most of the news USERS do NOT. 

Well, at least you call it a "theory."  I was beginning to think you'd
gone off the deep end, since I don't believe in mass clairvoyance.

I must point out that it is the guidelines which keep news admins
from having all the power.  You are right, in that they don't /have/
to stick to them.  No one will fine them or throw them in jail.
But you can't /give/ them power to overturn the vote now and then just
/take/ it back from them again.  The world doesn't work that way...

They are called "guidelines" because they are voluntary, and not because
breaking them has no consequence.  At the very least, breaking them
once means that it is considerably easier to break them again--and the
next time it might not be in your favor.  (The exception would be if
breaking the guidelines provoked such a dire conflagration that future
netters would recoil at the thought.  I don't think this weakens my
argument at all, though.)

>>Dave and others who are unhappy with the results of the guidelines
>>should propose ammendments to them.  I've seen threats, and rants and
>>raves, but no constructive proposals.
>
>I am working on them. Please be patient, and you'll hear from me again.

Great!  I hope you realize that for this to be more than an idle
exercise, you are going to have to do a better job of salesmanship for
your ideas than the sort of emotionalistic invective you've treated the
net to so far.  There is a big difference between rabble-rousing and
leadership.  And I'm not saying this to pick on you:  I've seen enough
fire-fights on the net to know that it's the cooler heads that are the
ones who eventually gain the most respect from the net community.

And as for /my/ head--cool or not, I've said my piece, so it's about
to drop out of sight.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org