dww@stl.UUCP (02/25/87)
Ten days ago I posted an article to news.groups proposing that, since they usually contain the same postings and mostly have the same readers, the two admin groups be combined into one. Since then I have had one mail message in favour and one against. While I still think it is pointless having two groups when only one is needed, the level of interest in this question clearly does not justify taking any action. Looks like those who say it's almost impossible to get rid of a group by democratic means are right. Pity; it makes it harder to argue for new groups when they are needed. -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, U.K. dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...seismo!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (03/02/87)
In article <499@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes: >Ten days ago I posted an article to news.groups proposing that, since they >usually contain the same postings and mostly have the same readers, the >two admin groups be combined into one. Since then I have had one mail >message in favour and one against. While I still think it is pointless >having two groups when only one is needed, the level of interest in this >question clearly does not justify taking any action. Sure, get rid of it. It's never been clear to me that there is really any difference between the two groups. On the other hand, the cost of a group that does not generate any unique traffic is essentially nil. It's just hard to get excited about it. I don't know how it made it through the renaming plan, but net.gods, why don't you just make news.sysadmin vanish, poof! -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
uddeborg@chalmers.UUCP (03/06/87)
In article <499@u410a.stl.stc.co.uk> dww@stl.UUCP (David Wright) writes: >Ten days ago I posted an article to news.groups proposing that, since they >usually contain the same postings and mostly have the same readers, the >two admin groups be combined into one. Since then I have had one mail >message in favour and one against. While I still think it is pointless >having two groups when only one is needed, the level of interest in this >question clearly does not justify taking any action. I would come to the opposite conclusion. Since (almost) noone objects to this cleanup, go ahead and and get the group removed! Groups are created when there is enough interest to motivate a separate forum. They should be removed (or, as in this case, combined), when there isn't enough interest any more. Obviously, there isn't very much interest to keep these to groups separate. -- "For me, UNIX is a (way of) being." G|ran Uddeborg uddeborg@chalmers.{UUCP,CSNET}