From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: ott.general
Subject: Re: Freenets
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:21:56 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc., Ottawa, Canada

In article <rwm.721244926@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> aa302@freenet.carleton.ca writes:

>  There was a small thread started on a local 'Fidonet' conference about
>Freenet.  A method to get information back and forth between freenet and
>the 'telecom enthusiasts' has been suggested, and I posted the following
>message in response.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what the question is.  What
exactly do you mean by "telecom enthusiasts"?

>In a message of Fr 06-Nov-92 23:31, Tony Smyth (1:243/20.0) wrote:
>
> TS> thing. But the process of having it accepted as part of the
> TS> hierarcy is, I believe, somewhat complex. but I will persue
> TS> that.

>  Actually, it's quite easy.  While the 'OTT' groups are not part of the
>regular hiarchy of newsgroups, Usenet uses a voteing process where 50%+1 need
>to be on the 'yes' side before a group is added.  Each site has the option to
>do what they want, but I've yet to see a case personally where even those who
>voted 'no' will disregard a democratic vote.

Um, the USENET voting process isn't like that at all.  There must be
100 more yes votes than no, and the yes votes must be at least 2/3 of
the total.  Put another way, 2/3 must be yes, and there must be 100 more
yes than no votes.  Part of the idea is to ensure that there's sufficient
interest.

If we were to try to impose USENET style voting rules into ott., we'd
probably *never* see anything pass, because there has to be at least 100
respondants.  A process similar to how alt is *supposed* to work is
probably better.  That is, the idea is discussed in ott.general first,
and if there seems to be general agreement that it's a good idea, then
the newgroup message gets sent.  We mainly want to avoid creating
flash-in-the-pan or very narrow interest groups or things that more
properly should be carried in the regular USENET.

> TS> Thirdly, Carleton U. which supplies the newsfeed to Freenet and
> TS> where the Freenet is currently housed will not feed news to UUCP
> TS> systems.

>  There are existing official connections.  The statement that I have
>understood is that no NEW connections will be added, and definetely not any
>connections  that would require any maintenance on the part of Carleton (IE:
>Time, something that they don't have enough of as it is).  If a group was sent
>into the 'ott' hiarchy, it would definetely reach NCF with no problems.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is NCF?  What exactly do you want to
exchange and where to?

Carleton's "problem" is with support time, plus probably bandwidth (at
~35Mb/day/feed you want to limit it).  That's why they cut back to only
a few connections.  However, connections can certainly be made to the
networks of machines that are fed off Carleton (ie: OCUNIX), which is
sufficient to get it to the rest of the planet.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca