>On usenet I, folk can tell you all day long what they thinkyou could/should
>do, but you don't have to. On usenet II, if the 'cabal' tell you to do
>something, and you decide you don't wanna', then you get to go back to
>usenet I.
>
>The benefits here should be obvious. Usenet II will not suffer from
>inappropriate postings (don't post that topic in that newsgroup), binary
>encoded postings (don't post that content anywhere) or spam (don't even
>_think_ about that kind of content).
The drawbacks should also be obvious. What happens if I want to have
civilized, rational discourse on a topic the Cabal doesn't feel should be
represented in Usenet II? For all the rules set forth in the Usenet II web
site, there are still a lot of holes in the setup that gives the Cabal a
lot of unchecked power. And we know what they say about power and absolute
power. This sort of oligarchic rule over a net.resource doesn't sit well
with me. I looked through the web site some time ago, and was particularly
struck by the following excerpt:
>Hierarchy Czars: "Divine Right"
>-------------------------------
>
>The conduct of each group and hierarchy shall be subject to its own policies
>and procedures. Hierarchy Czars shall be appointed by the Usenet II Steering
>Committee and will be responsible for appointing moderators and monitors,
>managing the hierarchy namespace, and dispensing summary justice within their
>fief.
>
Czars - Russian emperors. "Divine Right"?? That's what royal families claim
gives them the power to continue ruling for centuries on end, having been
chosen by God. A fief? That's also from ruling class terminology, referring
to a gift land from a king, and then divided up again by the recipient. And
also, my Webster's defines cabal as "An association of persons secretly
united to further their interests by plotting." The terminology they have
chosen to use speaks volumes to me about what they intend this project to
be.
I've quite a few thoughts on this new set up, but I'm sure this is not the
forum for that discussion. I toss in my $0.02 because, I don't think this
is a thing we should put our wholesale support behind. I don't have any
problem with individual FAQ maintainers abandoning their traditional Usenet
group for a quieter, more 'sound' Usenet II group, but I will not be
joining the migration. Even beyond the tight control issue, Usenet II is
trying to recapture a time when the Internet was populated with a small
group of computer people with enough self restraint not to post a lot of
drivel. That time has passed. The internet now is much larger, and with the
explosion of web resources, more people are likely to go to a web search
engine to find information than Usenet. I write my FAQ to be seen and read
by as many people as possible. By definition, the Usenet II audience is
going to be very small. Do we really want to restrict access to our
documents by moving to Usenet II? I don't. The universal law of entropy -
that things will and must move from order to increasing chaos - has to
apply to the internet as well. Yes, there is a lot of noise on Usenet, and
no there's not a lot anyone can do to stop it. But for a lot of groups,
there is still some intelligent discussion going on. It's not time to jump
ship, and definately not to this Usenet II.
That's my thought, for what it's worth.
--
Monee C. Kidd - mck@choco.com
One Passion - A Chocolate Lover's Dream - http://www.choco.com
Celebrate Eight - http://www.macos.apple.com/macos8