From ak717@FreeNet.Carleton.CA Mon Jan 27 18:28:17 EST 1997 Article: 63 of ncf.agm97.motions.drafts Path: news.flora.ottawa.on.ca!news.loran.com!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ak717 From: ak717@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Miranda Gray) Newsgroups: ncf.agm97.motions.drafts Subject: Discussion: ncf.* and ott.* newsgroups Date: 27 Jan 1997 16:51:27 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 446 Message-ID: <5cimef$q61@freenet-news.carleton.ca> Reply-To: ak717@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Miranda Gray) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet5.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: ak717@freenet5.carleton.ca (Miranda Gray) Xref: news.flora.ottawa.on.ca ncf.agm97.motions.drafts:63 This is very long. I have attempted to provide a comprensive answer about why this motion is coming forward and why it ended up being phrased the way it is phrased. Miranda --begin background doc for February board meeting Introduction =========== This paper outlines my internal debates about bringing a motion about NCF's newsgroups forward at the 1997 National Capital FreeNet Annual General Meeting. While it is not essential that you read this document to understand what I am moving, this will explain why *this* particular motion is the one I had submitted. The justification and rationale for the motion is contained here too. I have attempted to answer the most commonly asked questions from the previous debates at Export News Taskforce presentations. If you just want to know what the motion is, you can find it as a separate posting in n.a.m.d . I urge you to read this document to streamline the discussion at the board meeting where the decision to include or exclude this motion from the AGM will be made. This is not the document I would recommend as a background document at the AGM. I would suggest a modified version of Julie's excellent summary >from February 1995. [A modified version is attached.] Context: ======== Perhaps you may remember debates during the Quebec referendum about the wording of the question. Some people felt it was an unfair question because it included a reference to an agreement which had not yet been written. Similar concerns arise here. I spent a year talking about the issue as a member of the Export Newsgroups Taskforce. After this experience I have a fair understanding where the administrative pitfalls are to be expected. I could write a motion covering every administrative detail and procedure. It just wouldn't be readable by the majority of our members. I do not think NCF would be well served by a motion that brought matters of mere administrative procedure to the AGM. I think a clear motion about the reasons why newsgroup propagation should be increased would better serve NCF members. Yet I am not comfortable bringing this matter up and leaving the procedure up to the board. The board has previously struck a taskforce to look into the technical details. After a year of work, there did not seem to be enough consensus among the board members to get *any* administrative procedure implemented. As well at the 1994, NCF AGM included several administrative motions from the floor that were not "doable". Because no one had considered the implementation details, the Board of Directors at the time was forced to reject some of these motions. It lead to bitter feelings on many sides and probably cost the board some of its community support. I don't want to repeat this kerfluffle. So I am leery of bringing a motion to you for inclusion in the AGM without some discussion of administrative and technical procedure. In short, I wish to bring a motion to the members which is clear and non-administrative. At the same time, I want you, the board members, to be comfortable with how the motion can be implemented if passed. For myself, I just want action if the answer is yes. The motion: =========== I, Miranda Gray (ak717@freenet.carleton.ca) move that the National Capital FreeNet change its practices regarding ncf.* newsgroups to lessen the walls between NCF members and other participants in the local online community by 1) encouraging the creation of more ott.* newsgroups, 2) encouraging its Information Providers to consider alternatives to private ncf.* newsgroups and 3) discouraging the use of ncf.sig.* newsgroups when a comparable ott.* newsgroups exists or is created. Rationale: ========== The Ottawa-Hull area needs free, open, accessible, community meeting places on the net which are not dominated or controlled by commercial or government interests. These meeting places can't be owned by one community organization either. Newsgroups are these meeting places. Discussion: =========== Financial Costs and Benefits This is a low cost approach for NCF. There is no ongoing administrative or technical cost. No new committee needs to be formed. No pseudo-legal documents have to be hammered out (see the Export News Final proposal to see a more administratively costly way to distribute ncf.* groups). A few online documents may have to be updated. There may be a fax letter sent out by the office administrator which states all IPs must have an ncf.* newsgroup. But the online documents are unfortunately quiet on the matter of newsgroups. There is no one written source outlining NCF's goals and policies about newsgroups. Newsgroups can be slowly amalgamated over weeks or months. There is no need to change everything at once. There is no call for any technical staff time. ncf.* newsgroups will remain where they are on NCF's machines. Any new ott.* newsgroups will be created in the manner they are already being created. Closing ncf.* newsgroups will be handled by the information management taskforce as part of their routine maintenance procedures (as they are are already doing). One lesson out of the Menu Design taskforce work was not to do everything all at once. It scares people. A slow evolution will give members a chance to grow into the change. But what about donations? Yes, I know many of you are wondered about the effect on donations. I would like you to also consider the other side of the equations -- costs. There is no way to actually forecast the effect on donations. With a change in marketing, NCF could increase its fundraising results. Maybe people are willing to donate to a access provider for the unconnected even after they no longer need NCF's access services. It is impossible to tell since this is not how NCF has approached the greater online community of the area or its corporate supporters. On the plus side, it is clear that NCF costs will drop if the hits on the news sever drop. For everyone who reads their news somewhere else, NCF doesn't have to provide the service here. The resources freed-up can be used to pursue other parts of NCF's mission. NCF is still running its equipment at or over capacity. If fewer people are using it, expansion is not needed as dreadfully. So NCF could get more out of the same resources. This also lowers the demands on NCF's dollars. How it would be implemented? This motion attempts a return to the "if you want it, do it" approach of NCF's youth. Individual members of NCF can get involved by proposing change to individual newsgroups. The motion doesn't force NCF to take direct instant action. Instead it attempts to set a certain direction for the future. This motion is about attitude. 1) encouraging the creation of more ott.* newsgroups, The ott.* newsgroups have expanded in the past year. In part, the failure of the Export News taskforce caused some examination of how poorly understood the creation process was. Now the newsgroups are administered by ONAG. These volunteers simply ensure that newsgroups are created with good names and get distributed widely and correctly. Anyone with access to ott.config can make a proposal for a new group. It is very loosely structured. The hard bit seems to be getting the details out to the people. NCF could encourage the growth of local dialogue by simply proving a link to ONAG's FAQ in the "go sig-about" information area. [Some SIGs may have been proposed because members didn't know how to request an ott.* newsgroup.] This section is not labour intensive for NCF. Most of the "work" (debate and rangling) will be done by interested members -- not the board, not staff, not volunteers. 2) encouraging its Information Providers to consider alternatives to private ncf.* newsgroups and By encouraging IPs to consider alternative to ncf.* groups, the NCF is not creating more work but adjusting a few habits. There is no document which outlines for potential IPs the benefits and costs of different types of newsgroups. It would not be hard to write such a document. [A sample document is attached.] Contacting NCF's existing IPs would indeed be work. However, it is work that needs to be done as part of NCF's general ongoing maintenance. IPs do disappear with time. Sometimes whole organizations disappear. NCF has to touch base with its IPs periodically. Part of the discussion with IPs as they renew, should include an assessment of the newsgroups. As IPs revamp their information areas to include web resources, they should reconsider how they reach out in the newsgroups. 3) discouraging the use of ncf.sig.* newsgroups when a comparable ott.* newsgroups exists or is created. Recently, the NCF Sailing and Boating newsgroup decided to move to an ott.* group. The pluses and minuses were discussed and the ncf.* was phased out and a new ott.* created some more people would be able to get at the conversation. It wasn't the first time an ncf.* group was replaced by an ott.* and it won't be the last. NCF can help support readable newsgroups by keeping conversations limited to one newsgroup. The easiest way to do with using NCF's existing software is to phase out ncf.* newsgroups when they overlap. This isn't written in the form of a rule or a law. NCF needs to be flexible enough to accommodate members who are in the minority. But generally, the ncf.* group should be removed after a transition period. Motions I considered submitting but rejected ============================================ A) Adopt and implement the recommendations of the Export News taskforce report of February 10, 1996. Don't get me wrong. I worked hard on that report with everyone else. It was just that by the time every concern of the various factions of the board were satisfied, the process was unwieldy. B) Begin unrestricted distribution of all ncf.* newsgroups. NCF must be more flexible in its approach. Not all newsgroups are equal. The technical options allow for better management. C) Categorize all the newsgroups and export some. It is possible to categorize all the newsgroups. (I, for one, have been there and done that.) IMO, there are 4 main types of newsgroups on NCF. Here is the list -- administrative groups discussing NCF itself, IP newsgroups, most SIG newsgroups and the "special" SIG newsgroups. Last year, there was great resistance by board members to exporting the administrative newsgroups. Very great resistance. There was general consensus that every IPs should choose from their own organization. I just feel that NCF should be hinting in one direction (shared regional newsgroups). Many of the IPs don't have a great deal of online experience. They do need guidance and NCF should have documents which explain the options. [See attachment for sample.] The SIG newsgroups are a particular problem. As SIG administrator, it became clear to me that NCF has been too free in creating SIG newsgroups. NCF probably has more dead (less than 100 posts a year) ncf.sig.* newsgroups than live ncf.sig.* newsgroups. If NCF wants to make them easy to create, they should be cleaned up periodically. There is nothing wrong with making NCF a easy place to create a newsgroup. But empty or very quiet newsgroups don't promote discussion. It is not true that "if you build, they will come." I don't believe NCF should inflict its ncf.sig.* administrative nightmares on the world. This would be irresponsible. It is not even a task a committee can take on easily. [Mail me or invite me out for a drink if you want a run-down of where the grimier bits are. Quick, what is the full name of the newsgroup for the Chess SIG or the Maritime Music SIG?] NCF also has some conversations which need an extra quiet area. Some conversations benefit from being off the beaten track. In particular, the moderated SIG newsgroups benefit from serving a tiny section of Ottawa-Hull's population. Any distribution plan which failed to accommodate them was be harmful. D) Democratic nightmares -- let each SIG population vote individually It was suggested (as part of the months of Export News discussions I think) that each SIG newsgroup should have a separate vote on whether the newsgroup goes or stays. I can't imagine any way this would work in the newsgroups where it would be most needed. The SIG populations are not controlled in any way. There is no way to prevent ballot stuffing when you don't have a list of voters. Let's take the Flat Earth SIG for example. Suppose I don't want it to become ott.*.flat-earth. There is nothing stopping me from getting every NCF member I know to vote against the proposal even though they don't ever read the group and won't be affected. That's only one way the procedure would be difficult. It is not hard to imagine that some groups would spend all their time debating the "distribution issue" as vote after vote was called. [Another disadvantage of the "distribute some" approach is knowing which is which. It is already difficult for some newer members knowing which groups are international and which are just ncf.* . Imagine the confusion if some ncf.* groups are available only on freenet-news and some are international.] E) Read-only groups Yet another suggestion was newsgroups which are read-only. It is possible to distribute the newsgroups but refuse the postings from people outside NCF. I think this would be worse than the situation now. Why walls are bad ================= I decided that NCF was heading in the wrong direction in this matter one night after catching a great CBC news magazine piece about walled communities in the States (and B.C.). I watched interviews with people that think it is okay to wall off the world. They like that only a certain kind of person is allowed to walk on the streets. They like that it is possible to go for days without leaving the compound. I don't want to live like that. I don't live that way in the Real World and I don't want my community network to wall itself away from its neighbours. --end background document for February board meeting -- begin sample document for IPs Selecting a Newsgroup ===================== When you become an Information Provider with FreeNet, you are encouraged to select a newsgroup to accompany your online material. The newsgroup provides a place for readers to post question about your organization or can provide a hangout for your organization's members. You have several options about the newsgroup. 1) Sharing a newsgroup with identical organizations. Newsgroups can have hundreds of thousands or participants or just a handful of people. Some NCF IPs are very specialized. There may be few people in the area who share this interest. However, there may be a strong national or international group already online. If you know of an online newsgroup, you can direct people to it from your NCF menu or Webpage. If your topic is very specialized, the only newsgroups available may be international newsgroups. These newsgroups are carried on many many computers around the world. 2) Sharing a regional newsgroup with similar organizations and people. If you want to reach mostly local people, you may prefer to participant in one of regional newsgroups. ott.* newsgroups are newsgroups for the Ottawa-Hull Region. ont.* newsgroups cover all of Ontario. Finally can.* newsgroups are Canada's national discussion areas. These newsgroups can be made available anywhere in the world on demand. Generally they are carried by all the networks within the geographical area. Regional groups are the best way to reach your neighbours. 3) Asking for a private newsgroup just for your organization. NCF recognizes that some groups have a need for extra privacy. NCF can provide a private newsgroup here on NCF. The postings will be readable via the web anywhere in the world but only NCF members will be able to join in the discussion. Of course, you aren't limited to just one newsgroup. You can put lots of newsgroups in your information area. Experience has taught us that newsgroups are one of the most popular features of NCF. Our members like to talk. You will get feedback on your information if you tell people how to get in contact with you. If you aren't sure what kind of newsgroup is best for your group, the NCF can give you advice. It isn't a permanent decision. You can always add a private group later if you need one. Call the office if you would like advice on what option to pursue. -- end sample document for IPs -- begin summary of reasons [Adopted from ab161@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Julie Chahal) Subject: Exporting ncf newsgroups -- Summary Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 20:36:11 GMT] Advantages: -- the mission statement emphasizes community networking, thus implying the whole community, not just those currently registered on FreeNet. -- reduce demand for phone lines -- it would put less load on freenet-news. Each person reading news on the Freenet individually places a load on freenet-news, as opposed to groups of people putting on a similar load (IE: More people on each connection and thus less connections). -- more convenient to those with alternative online access, especially those which have off-line readers in place. -- make the FreeNet a better net citizen -- non-newsgroup data on FreeNet is already freely available to Internet users via web browsers Concerns: -- having a set of local-only groups is very useful to our members. The Usenet system lets you target content on the basis of some criterion, be it geographic, political, or topic. The NCF does have special characteristics that are different -- even different than the local region that it serves. Targeting specific users or interests makes for very useful groups. -- the ncf.* newsgroups constitute a valuable resource for attracting and keeping an active contributing membership -- unless we restrict posting to ncf members, volume of posting in each group would increase, making the group less accessible and adding to system load -- people from outside might tend to be users (and arrogant, demanding) but not contributors (talk but no help) -- people have the option to telnet in, even if it is very slow, if they really want NCF groups. Broader Issues: Who is the 'community' that the Freenet serves? Our mission statement says it is the people and organizations of this region. Our priorities, developed during the summer, but not formally adopted, say: * individuals who would not otherwise have access to telecomputing * non-profit organizations that serve the community * other individuals living in the region * individuals and organizations with an interest in the region. -- end summary of reasons Yes, it is finally over. Thanks for reading. Miranda -- Miranda Gray National Capital FreeNet ak717@freenet.carleton.ca