chuqui@cae780.UUCP (12/20/83)
Here is a current listing of the responses (private and public) I have seen on obsolete topics. I should note that this discussion will continue until it seems that a concensus on each topic is reached or there people stop yelling at me. I am going to post this to each topic under consideration so that those that don't normally read net.news.group will know what is going on. Current standings net.movies.sw 1 die, 2 save net.applic 1 die net.college 2 save net.games.pacman 1 die net.rec.birds 1 save net.rec.skydive 1 maybe (seasonal?) net.usoft.s 1 die net.vvs 1 die One person pointed out that net.rec.skydive may be seasonal. My question is whether or not it can be combined with net.rec (which is usually rather slow) without much loss. skydivers wanna comment? Some other suggested topics for removal were given to me. These are now open for consideration as well: New warrants off the net net.cse.cae 1 die (no topic discussion?) net.records 2 die (merge to net.music?) net.tv.da 1 die (temp topic, dying out?) net.ucds 1 die net.wobegon 1 die *Weak flame on* Let me make one quick comment. I don't particularly LIKE doing this, however I also don't particularly LIKE watching the number of topics (and the number of unused topics) growing without apparent bounds. There has been at least some attempt at generating consensii before creating new topics. there is (supposed to be) discussion and a decision. There is no such thing for topic removal. To get rid of a topic right now takes an arbitrary act on the part of someone, which usually gets someone else angry. The usual comment that I get when I start this conversation up (for those that hadn't noticed, this isn't the first time I've commented on this subject) is that usenet can handle 512 topics, so why bother? This isn't a software issue, folks. Its a people issue. The net, as it stands now, is a rather confusing beast for newcomer and old hand alike. Look at the problem we have with postings to multiple topics? It has been blamed on laziness, but I think the real cause of a lot of it is simply that people don't know how to reach the audience they are looking for. If we had fewer topics that were clearly defined, I think the problem would be reduced. I don't care how many topics the software can handle. I can't handle keeping track of all the topics we have now (much less read them all), so I don't know how someone who is new to the net can. If we get rid of all the sh*t, maybe it will be easier to keep track of the useful topics, and maybe, just maybe, we can keep the net from collapsing upon itself because of its sheer size. I have made a couple of suggestions for this in the past. I think its time we adopt SOME procedure for getting rid of topics as well as creating them. The one I would like to adopt is that every time someone wants to create a new topic, they suggest a topic to remove. Both can be discussed, the supporters of the topic under fire can suggest alternatives, and eventually a consensus can be reached. then, BOTH operations are done simultaneously. (I should point out that the consensus can also be that there is NO topic that should be deleted at the time. This is where I hope we end up, to tell you the truth. I just want us to THINK about what we can do without. No mandated limits, no forced deletion, just reflection. It may also be that we come up with a number of topics to disappear....). If we get this under control, and implement good topics, then our next step may be to figure out how to upgrade from 512 topics, but I don't think we will get that far the way things are set up now... *match off* Flames welcome, anything is better than nothing at all...
alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (12/21/83)
For one thing, net.vvs is not dead. It is used mainly by allegra!vortex!lauren (Lauren Weinstein) -- talk to him if you don't know what's going on. Second thing: This was tried once in the past, a couple years ago I proposed a list of groups to go and deleted them. The result was widespread chaos, confusion, and anger. It was worht it then, because the groups that went were illegit groups or those that hadn't been used in periods of 6 months and up. It is not so worth it now, as I have seen action recently on most all of the groups mentioned.
chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon Noll) (12/29/83)
consider the fact that the volume of net.movies.sw articles to mean that there are more than 2 people who want that group to exist.... chongo <may the curses be with you...> /\CC/\
holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (01/02/84)
Anyone who subscribes to this many newsgroups should be terminated.