NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/news/groups/24818

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.6 KB

Xref: sparky news.groups:24818 alt.native:1519
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!gnosys!gst
From: [e-mail] (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: CALL FOR STRAW VOTE: NATIVE NEWSGROUP
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 08:03:18 GMT
Lines: 136

I'd just like to answer Brian's points about my suggestion that one or
more mailing lists be gated with corresponding Usenet newsgroups and about
the eligibility of mailing list subscribers to vote on a motion to create
a given newsgroup.  However, I don't expect to be posting much more on this
subject, since I've decided that it is not the appropriate issue to be
arguing at this point.  More important, I feel, is simply getting a single
newsgroup created at present; though I would prefer to talk about a pair of
newsgroups, I've come to the conclusion that I can live with the situation of
having only one newsgroup for the time being, and that it is a good use of
our time and energy to just resolve the question of what to call it, and the
task of getting it approved.  As others have pointed out to me, we can decide
on whether to create a separate discussion newsgroup at a later time.  I hope
this concession on my part will contribute to a less argumentative discussion.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
    (Hades) writes:

> [e-mail] (Ed McGuire) writes:

> >Excuse me, but moving a big mailing list to news will /decrease/
> >traffic.  News is more efficient than mail for wide distribution and
> >more convenient when the traffic is heavy because of the filter
> >features of newsreaders.  The existence of NATIVE-L, etc., is one of
> >my prime motivators for helping this project get started on the right
> >foot.

>     It will increase the traffic to the newsgroup, and this is what I
> was talking about. In fact if the mailing list is that big then it will
> be a significant increase in traffic for the newsgroup, and needs to be
> discussed even more.

Let me suggest that overall traffic into or out of the newsgroup is not
an issue we should be discussing unless we can establish that there
would be a significant proportion of noise, relative to signal, added
thereby.  The fact that there are nearly four hundred obviously satis-
fied customers on the NATIVE-L mailing list seems to be the best proof
possible for what I claim is the fact that the signal-to-noise ratio is
extremely high for this mailing list.  Yes, feeding its contents into a
Usenet newsgroup would result in higher traffic, compared to what that
same newsgroup would receive without such input.  However, I claim that
the quality of the articles injected is extremely high, as measured by
its having retained so many subscribers, which includes a significant
number of faculty and professionals who work in the subject area of
indigenous peoples.  There are also quite a number of American Indian
and other native people who are members of the list who take part
regularly in the exchange of information.  A similar claim can be made
for the NATCHAT list, which is linked with Usenet's alt.native.  I don't
see why volume in a given newsgroup in and of itself should be a matter
of concern, or why the origin of a given article should be involved in
rating its worth.  Please note that the link being proposed is fully
bi-directional, so not only can people in the mailing list community
communicate with the Usenet newsgroup, but postings to the newsgroup
will be gated back to the mailing list, so it's not as if some flood
of foreign material is being injected, it's just a matter of two types
of access being provided for a given forum.  The mailing list is moder-
ated, which might be important in protecting its members from some of
the more random postings which tend to be characteristic of Usenet, but
that fact imposes no requirement that the newsgroup be moderated (so
there will be no mechanism for protecting Usenetters from themselves. :-)

As for Ed's point about reducing net traffic as a result of linking the
mailing list(s) with Usenet newsgroup(s), I know that overall traffic
on the net will decrease as a result of the link, to the extent that
some present members of the mailing list will become able to access the
same material more conveniently via Usenet.

So I think we may have a simple case of a miscommunication in this case,
and both Brian and Ed are correct - traffic in the newsgroup will be
greater than it would be if it were not linked with the newsgroup, but
the overall traffic on the net can be expected to be reduced a bit.

>     Try reading what I wrote before you try and add your own
> interpretation. I object to people thinking that this link between the
> mailing list and the newsgroup is trivial enough to not be discussed or
> voted upon.

There is nothing in the guidelines for newsgroup creation, which is the
only standard I know of that governs such matters, about obtaining such
approval from anyone.  Please cite your evidence if you know of such a
standard.

>     My opposition stems from the methods being applied in conjunction
> with this proposal. I happen to support the group.

As do I.  I suggest we work on combining our forces to accomplish the one
thing we agree on, then.

> >   "Many of these people" do not have UseNet access at their sites,
> >   and therefore all of their votes are invalid.

> >And just how do you propose to identify them?

Just as importantly, what reason do we have to think that there is anything
wrong with those people voting?

>     This is not the point. We try to work on a "honor system" around
> here, and if you are having people vote who do not even have the access
> to read UseNet at their site, then there is something wrong with the
> people handling the vote.

Claims about "the way things work" are insubstantial.  We have only the
guidelines and the net-gods to guide us.  Let me quote from the guidelines
"How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup," Last-change: 23 Sep 1992 by
[e-mail] (Gene Spafford):

| The Discussion
|
| 1) A request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be
|    posted to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or
|    mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic if desired...

I see no mention in the guidelines about who is eligible to vote.  The
inference I draw from the above is that mailing list folks are actively
encouraged to participate in the vote.  Can someone advance another
reason that the guidelines suggests that they be informed?  I see nothing
to indicate that people informed via email must have access to some par-
ticular forum via some particular mechanism in order to take part in the
discussion or to submit a valid vote for or against the newsgroup itself.

The simple fact is that subscribers to the NativeNet mailing lists form
the greatest single population of people who can be relatively easily
mobilized to vote in favor of newsgroup creation.  Further, I think that
those of us taking part in this discussion agree on enough to permit us
to stop the bickering.  I have made some important concessions in this
article, I think, and I hope that the other parties involved will respond
in good faith.  We can sort out whatever still divides us later, as others
have been suggesting all along.  My apologies if my own positions have had
the effect of contributing to unnecessary ill will.

Peace.

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            [e-mail]
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst