CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Give comp.unix control to the wizards

[Dan Bernstein]

Why don't we give comp.unix control to the wizards?

Several issues come up:

  1. Who we call the ``wizards.''
  2. What ``control'' means.
  3. How the wizards come to agreement.
  4. How the net gets control back if this experiment fails.

Some possible answers:

1. We'll arbitrarily say that anyone who sent a message to unix-wizards
before the great USENET renaming counts as a wizard. This isn't perfect,
but it should produce a group with a reasonable number of experienced
netters who have some interest in the groups.

2. Control pretty much means that they can futz around under comp.unix
any way they want. Restrictions: They have to give at least two weeks
notice of any coming changes, both in news.announce.newgroups and in any
affected comp.unix groups. They have to pay attention to comments sent
to whatever appropriate place, say news.groups. And when the time is up,
they have to post again to the original groups, listing objections
received, why they agree or don't agree, and what's going to happen.
Finally, there has to be some appropriate place to send suggestions that
they'll read any time.

3. It's pretty much up to the wizards how they'll come to agreement.
Initially it should be something like a two-thirds majority vote for any
proposed change. I expect they'll set up a mailing list for internal
discussions.

4. If people aren't satisfied with how comp.unix is being run, we can
have a normal vote here every once in a while. Say each vote starts no
earlier than six months past the previous one. This gives the cabal, uh
I mean wizards, some leeway but not enough for abuse. If they're voted
out, comp.unix reverts to its current anarchy, and we can immediately
start a vote for fixing whatever problems they've caused. (Discussion
for that vote would go on simultaneously with the recall discussion.)

Comments?

---Dan