Newsgroups: news.admin
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Is USENET stagnating? (long)
Message-ID: <1989Nov1.173352.25882@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <40056@looking.on.ca> <1989Oct30.040015.3272@alembic.acs.com> <9499@max.u.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 89 17:33:52 GMT

In article <9499@max.u.washington.edu> wcn@max.u.washington.edu (W C Newell Jr) writes:
>1)  It should be possible to add/modify/rename groups by a consensus of expert
>users rather than by a popular vote...

At one point, this was so.  Remember the great sinister Backbone Cabal?
It eventually dissolved because (a) the experts persistently had trouble
reaching consensus on significant issues, and (b) they were taking a
whole lot of largely-undeserved shit from the populace at large.
(Obligatory Usenet Disclaimer:  :-)  having been one of them, I'm not
unbiased.)

>The time has come for the creation of
>some official Usenet by-laws, and in particular for the establishment of a
>governing body with elected representatives from the various constituent
>groups.  This body should have ultimate authority on administrative issues such
>as the naming of groups, the status of moderators and the certification of
>software updates.

This is an interesting idea.  Doubtless it will be followed by membership
fees and rules on who is allowed to be a Usenet member?  (For example,
all those awful capitalist swine in businesses clearly have much deeper
pockets than universities, so they should pay ten times as much for the
privilege of being second-class citizens.)

The result will be an interesting network, but it will not be Usenet.
I'm not saying this in the sense of "the spirit will be gone", but in
the sense of "this is literally a new network, not a revision of an
old one".  Usenet will continue to exist in parallel, since a lot of
people won't be interested in joining the New Order Of Things, and
there is no way to force them to.

>2)  The major security holes now in place must be dealt with ASAP.  Our users
>do not appreciate having to repeatedly refuse subscriptions to bogus groups
>such as alt.sex.bestiality.  Forgeries may eventually become a real problem;
>this may require some enhancements to the protocols.

The major security holes now in place are inherently unfixable without,
at the very least, improved transport technology.  In an environment of
insecure transport provided by insecure sites, "enhancements to the
protocols" simply cannot do the job.

>3)  Site managers have to be impressed with the importance of ensuring that
>their local users adhere to Usenet guidelines and reasonable net etiquette...

How?  Nobody has ever been able to come up with a way to legislate the
presence of competent and conscientious administrators.  At many sites,
such animals simply do not exist and cannot be conjured up easily.

>... major sites such as ours may need some legal protection in actions
>which stem from libelous or obscene material we may receive...

I hope you realize that one major *disadvantage* of having an official
Usenet government is that it becomes an obvious target for legal action.
One strength of the current network is that when the lawyers come knocking,
there's nobody home.

>5)  Every established newsgroup should have a moderator ...

Can you explain how these people would be paid?  (You're *not* going to
get them to do it for free; it's too much work.)

>...I do feel that the above-described changes are of
>fundamental importance if Usenet is to remain a single entity.

It is not now, and never has been, a single entity.
-- 
A bit of tolerance is worth a  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
megabyte of flaming.           | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
