NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/crypt/6320

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!foxtail!blkhole!titipu!ed
From: [e-mail] (Edward Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 12:11:55 EST(-0500)
Organization: Accuracy, Ltd.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Edward Reid)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v0
Lines: 102

[e-mail] (Daniel Ray) writes:
> 1. Vacate and cancel sci.crypt, and, at the same time
> 2. Create 2 new groups sci.crypt.general and sci.crypt.theory

.misc instead of .general is the usual convention.

.theory has a nice ring but I'm afraid it could be interpreted too broadly.
Same problem with .science.  I like .research or .algorithms or .technical.  To
those who are concerned that these groups will be too narrow and not address
the concerns of practitioners (my affiliation): note that newsgroups tend to
broaden beyond the implications of their names, not constrict.  Just to cite
one example, look at, oh for example, maybe sci.crypt.  Write the charter
broadly, but choose a narrow name.  Most people choose a newsgroup to post to,
based on the name and one-line description, without reading the full charter.

But for the general group, choose a broad name, something inclusive, which does
not discourage any crypt-related discussion.  The principle is to keep the
.theory newsgroup clear, not by restrictions, but by drawing other discussions
elsewhere.  Make the alternative inviting.  I think that .misc, or .general, or
talk.anything, makes the alternative less inviting.  Leave it as sci.crypt.
Whether or not we think that sci.crypt logically "ought" to draw only
scientific discussions, actual observation (the essence of science, no?) shows
that sci.crypt has in fact appeared very inviting to many people with highly
varied interests.

With a sufficiently suggestive name to draw non-technical discussions, I think
moderation would be totally unneeded in the technical newsgroup.  The technical
discussions in sci.crypt have been generally low noise, to the point,
non-political.  Even the Eric Lindano thread stayed reasonably calm, civilized
and focussed.

> This keeps both groups at the same level of bifurcation in the hierarchy,
> which is much more convenient in terms of setting up newsfeeds and sys files.

Who is to serve whom?  Do we serve the machines or do they serve us?  Setting
up newsfeeds and sys files are technical problems.  Solve them in ways that
best serve us, based on actual human behavior, so that we can work effectively
and unhindered.  Forty years ago humans had to bend their behavior to cater to
the machine.  That model is no longer appropriate.

> Also it forces people to come to an understanding regarding which group
> is for what purpose.

Force people to understand?  On some other planet, perhaps.  "'Shut up', he
explained."  You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think.  (Can't
make *him* think, says my wife.)

----------------
[e-mail] (Hal Feinstein) writes:
> I have no opinion what they get called. There seems already to be some
> protocol on how to  name groups.

Read the posting "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" in
news.announce.newgroups.  It lays out the details of creating a newsgroup and
gives extensive advice.  It also provides a mailing list address that you can
use to get the advice of several seasoned news adminstrators on naming a
newsgroup.

----------------
[e-mail] (Marc Thibault) writes:
>         It would seem appropriate for one of the mature scientists to
>         paddle a RFD down to news.groups.

The process is mostly adminstrative in nature, rather than technical.  It's not
clear that "mature science" is needed so much as mature administrative talent.
I'd be happy to help write or review a proposal, though I'm certainly not a
mature cryptographer.  Well, not mature *as* a cryptographer, anyway.

David Lawrence has on vacation over Christmas and New Year's, so any proposal
is likely to take some time getting into news.announce.newgroups.  It's best to
get some advice before starting.  I've seen a number of proposals withdrawn a
couple of times, because of problems in their construction, before succeeding.

-----------------
[e-mail] (W. A. Simon) writes:
>  We all have a "n" key as well as a kill file.

We don't all have kill files.  Please don't base any arguments on the
assumption that we do.  Some of us not only don't have kill files but pay for
our feeds, either in connect charges or LD phone bills, and kill files (even if
available) don't work until after the charge has been incurred.

> ...  As to the idea of moving our tents every time we don't
> like the new neighbours, it penalizes those who move...

The cost and inconvenience of moving to another newsgroup is a couple of orders
of magnitude less than that of moving a physical tent.

-------------------
"Thomas W. Strong, Jr." <[e-mail]> writes:
>   Please post all discussion to news.groups.

This request is directly from the "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup"
article.  However, I disagree with the advice.  On the contrary, please post
all discussion to sci.crypt.  I don't receive news.groups and I don't want to,
for much the same reasons that I would like to see sci.crypt split: a lot of
traffic that doesn't interest me, and the cost of receiving that traffic.  The
advice is appropriate for starting a new group from scratch, but not when
proposing a split of an existing newsgroup.

Edward Reid  (8*}>
  eel:   [e-mail]  or  nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!ed
  snail: PO Box 378/Greensboro FL 32330