lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (08/12/89)
I protest the charter of news.announce.newgroups, that the moderator will not post messages announcing new groups in heirarchies that are not part of the `traditional USENET list of groups'. If news.announce.newgroups is to be the place for the announcment of properly created groups, then it should be used for ALL hierarchies. It is not enough to simply post such announcements in the `alternate hierarchy', because a new topic could interest someone outside of that hierarchy. In the case of the bionet groups, we are expanding to handle fields outside of molecular biology. Each time a new group props up in our hierarchy, I receive several requests for new feeds. If spaf can mention such groups in the list of alternate hierarchies, there should be no reason to censor announcements such as mine from news.announce.newgroups. Therefore, I request a change in the charter. Eliot Lear The BIONET Project
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (08/12/89)
In article <Aug.11.13.44.17.1989.4684@NET.BIO.NET= lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: =I protest the charter of news.announce.newgroups, that the moderator =will not post messages announcing new groups in heirarchies that =are not part of the `traditional USENET list of groups'. = =If news.announce.newgroups is to be the place for the announcment of =properly created groups, then it should be used for ALL hierarchies. =It is not enough to simply post such announcements in the `alternate =hierarchy', because a new topic could interest someone outside of that =hierarchy. In the case of the bionet groups, we are expanding to =handle fields outside of molecular biology. Each time a new group =props up in our hierarchy, I receive several requests for new feeds. = =If spaf can mention such groups in the list of alternate hierarchies, =there should be no reason to censor announcements such as mine from =news.announce.newgroups. = =Therefore, I request a change in the charter. = =Eliot Lear =The BIONET Project I respectfully (yes, I mean that) disagree. news.announce.newsgroups is, unless I misunderstood something, an attempt to simply filter out a lot of the flamage when discussion of formation of groups occurs. This doesn't apply to the bionet groups, among others, because formation of the groups is not something determined by anything like consensus of various Usenet sysadmins and newsadmins - it's a centralized decision made without any form of input from the 'traditional' (I like that word, means so much to so many people) people that determine the flow of usenet articles. Are you proposing that bionet groups go through a netwide call for discussion, a voting period, and are you then willing to be bound by that 'vote'? I'd think not, since you have a different organisation anyhow. This is NOT a slam at bionet or Eliot in any form. I carry bionet and offer it to all my downstream feeds as well. Whenever I get a checkgroups from him, or newgroup or rmgroup, I honor it - because it's HIS group (or at least the BIONET Project's group) and they get to decide what they want to have and not want to have. But it seems to me that it's really only fair that if they are to be a separate group with separate rules, that there's no need to also use other net resources as well (people's time, differing distribution routes, etc). Spaf's list of alternate hierarchies seems reasonable and adequate here. Otherwise we might get to the point where <deity of your choice> forbid, we end up expecting and requireing all the alt.* groups to be announced in news.announce.newgroups as well. Dewey -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I | | ...!natinst!sequoia!dewey | will try to hear what you are saying" | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | If I so often disagree with my company, of course these ideas are mine | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
wcs) (08/13/89)
In article <Aug.11.13.44.17.1989.4684@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: > I protest the charter of news.announce.newgroups, that the moderator > will not post messages announcing new groups in hierarchies that > are not part of the `traditional USENET list of groups'. > If news.announce.newgroups is to be the place for the announcment of > properly created groups, then it should be used for ALL hierarchies. I agree with Eliot - USENET as a community involves all the distribution groups, including the core quasi-non-commercial-non-alt groups and the rest as well, and we all benefit from announcements about new groups, even those that our companies' machines may not end up carrying. Does the current charter even support announcements of the inet groups? -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # also cloned at 201-271-4712 tarpon.att.com!wcs Somerset NJ CP3/4C423 # How can I split this beer atom? I'll try that chisel over there ...
gam@uts.amdahl.com (Gordon Moffett) (08/13/89)
In the referenced article, dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes:
# Spaf's list of alternate hierarchies seems reasonable and adequate here.
# Otherwise we might get to the point where <deity of your choice> forbid, we
# end up expecting and requireing all the alt.* groups to be announced in
# news.announce.newgroups as well.
This is exactly what I object to, also. Leave alt.* out of it.
alt.config serves that purpose for now, and to include it in
news.announce.newgroups would lead to more centralized regulation.
I have voted 'no'.
--
Gordon A. Moffett gam@uts.amdahl.com
+1 408 746-8287 {ames,sun,uunet,decwrl}!amdahl!gamhenry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/13/89)
In article <Aug.11.13.44.17.1989.4684@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >If news.announce.newgroups is to be the place for the announcment of >properly created groups, then it should be used for ALL hierarchies... Or such hierarchies should be merged into the main ones. It really is a pain that every little topic thinks it deserves a hierarchy of its own. Most of them carry so little traffic and are so uncontroversial that they could easily be absorbed into the main ones. That is, the one major virtue of being separate -- slightly easier administration of differing distribution paths -- is usually of no real importance. Actually, I do agree with Eliot, because one or two of the other hierarchies do have real reasons to exist, and terse announcements of changes to them would improve n.a.n.'s usefulness at little cost. But the problem could be greatly reduced by just reducing the number of silly superfluous hierarchies. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/13/89)
In article <1989Aug13.021012.216@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Or such hierarchies should be merged into the main ones. It really is >a pain that every little topic thinks it deserves a hierarchy of its own. I think the reason for this, particularly in the case of ALT, is a desire to avoid the bureaucracy of the current group creation procedure. No, that's not the only reason, but it's a major one. So I think the other hierarchies will continue to exist and have a reason for existing in that way. Actually, there's very little need for hierarchies. My own news subscription mechanism for sites involves giving the site a .newsrc instead of a sys file line, so control can be done at the individual newsgroup level. The only use left for hierarchies is handling control messages. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) (08/13/89)
In article <Aug.11.13.44.17.1989.4684@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >I protest the charter of news.announce.newgroups, that the moderator >will not post messages announcing new groups in heirarchies that >are not part of the `traditional USENET list of groups'. > >If spaf can mention such groups in the list of alternate hierarchies, >there should be no reason to censor announcements such as mine from >news.announce.newgroups. > >Therefore, I request a change in the charter. Perhaps such announcements should take place in alt.announce.newgroups ? spaf does a great job of letting us know what's available in alternate news groups periodically. If we (collectively) are interested, we can always read those groups. If we don't get them already, feeds aren't that hard to find. On the other hand, there really would be no harm done in such an announcement, as we're talking about _very_little_ bandwidth here. I suppose an appropriate summary of my posting would be that there are 2 ways of looking at the situation, both of them valid. >Eliot Lear, The BIONET Project Ed. A. Hew Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew ->home: changing to: edhew@xenitec.uucp [but be patient for new maps] # I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on floppy around here somewhere!
pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) (08/14/89)
I disagree with Elliot. Bionet/Alt/GNU are not part of USENET. They have their own rules and their own philosophy (well, bionet may follow usenet rules for posting, but it is under separate "management" (IMHO)). Alt.config works reasonably well for alt. GNU newsgroups are directly tied to mailing lists and are established by one "authority". I don't see a particular pressing need for an universal announce group. If it turns out that alt or bionet, or gnu need such a mechanism, they will create one within their own heirarchy. Remember, if there are no messages posted to it, it simply lies dormant and it's no extra work for those of use that look at such a group.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/14/89)
Come now. I don't get GNU, or biz, or bionet or more than a couple of groups of Alt. Nor am I at all interested in getting their own versions of news.groups, which if not moderated, will be similar to the main news.groups group -- guess why people wanted news.announce.groups in news.*? But I am interested in finding out what new groups get created in these hierarchies, so that I can decide if I want to get them fed to me. It would be nice to just get announcements, with a short 5 line description for each gorup, and not have to check for changes in a big list of one line descriptions of everything. I think that so long as it's moderated, even my enemies don't have to worry about it being abused by evil money grubbing scum such as myself. Gasp. Here I am agreeing with Lear@bio.net! :-) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) (08/14/89)
Please clarify something: would you announce new <hierarchy> groups with <hierarchy> distribution or world distribution? I don't think there would be any complaints about the former. -=EPS=-
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/14/89)
In article <1047@anise.acc.com> pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) writes: I don't see a particular pressing need for an universal announce group. If it turns out that alt or bionet, or gnu need such a mechanism, they will create one within their own heirarchy. At least one such mechanism already exists. See gnu.config or gnu.announce, depending upon whether you're talking about announcements regarding GNU software or discussion regarding the gnu.* heirarchy. In article <4001@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: It would be nice to just get announcements, with a short 5 line description for each gorup, and not have to check for changes in a big list of one line descriptions of everything. That's why the "diffs to alternative newsgroup heirarchies" are posted, so it can be easily scanned. One line can contain plenty of information to support a decision to request a feed of the group. I don't feel especially compelled to update the moderator of comp.archives every time I update something in our archive here, largely because our archive operates differently than many, and those who use it keep themselves up to date via the normal mechanisms we provide for them to do so. Similarly, I don't feel any particular need to tell news.announce.newgroups whenever a new GNU-oriented mailing list is created with a corresponding group in gnu.*. Sites that get gnu.* get the newgroup as part of the normal course of life, and the newgroup control message generally contains a description of the group. Call me a rugged individualist, but when I undertake activities outside the scope of the Usenet, I don't feel the need to automatically conform to its conventions.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (08/14/89)
Oh come on. Do you really think I want my users trying to parse diffs? I will state it yet again for you, Bob. To take your method to its logical conclusion I would need to subscribe to EVERY hierarchy, or at least every an group in every hierarchy AND REQUIRE MY USERS TO READ ALL OF THEM. I would like my users to be able to read ONE group that contains all the newsgroup announcements, so that when they see something interesting that we don't get I can arrange to receive it. For that matter, even if we do receive it, I still don't want to have to have my users read more than one group for the announcement of new newsgroups. With regard to the distribution, again, if the distribution is limited to the particular hierarchy involved, those who would want to subscribe to a newsgroup in that hierarchy who do not already receive that hierarchy would not see the announcement. What I am talking about is nothing more than a modified form of news.announce.conferences or comp.newprod. I don't want to see commercializing in such a newsgroup, just announcements.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (08/14/89)
I am not arguing that those outside of USENET should be required to use news.announce.newgroups, just that they should be allowed to. Given GNU's generic lousy attitude toward the rest of USENET, I wouldn't expect to see to much stuff for GNUsenet.
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (08/14/89)
I don't mind if n.a.n posts the newgroup messages. Indeed, it's handy for
those people who don't read control to find out what groups they're missing
at their site.
I don't, however, want to see n.a.n cluttered with calls for discussion...
especially when the given hierarchy doesn't necessarily need one.
So keep the creation (and removal) messages as a public service, but have
that be about all.
or am I the only
person to whom that
sounds reasonable?
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
Taste me! Taste me! I'm organic! - The Bobsbob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/15/89)
In article <Aug.14.09.10.27.1989.13025@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes:
I am not arguing that those outside of USENET should be required to
use news.announce.newgroups, just that they should be allowed to.
OK, I misread your comments, and now I agree with you. Similarly, I
don't own a gun, I'll fight for your right to one, but not to force me
to carry one.
Given GNU's generic lousy attitude toward the rest of USENET, I
wouldn't expect to see to much stuff for GNUsenet.
I don't know specifics about FSF's attitude about Usenet, but the
individuals just seem leery of all the volatile volume here and the
time it consumes. Still, they seem happy enough to use the same
transport mechanisms for their own mailing lists, and are trying to
keep gnu.* a generally quieter place, distinct from the Usenet
culture. That doesn't preclude occasional updates in n.a.newgroups,
so long as they're both allowed and voluntary, as you point out. I
don't think the attitude is as much lousy as it separatist.
Sheesh, it's amazing how loudly people can shout at each other when
they agree about something :-)woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (08/15/89)
In article <415@wet.UUCP> epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) writes: >Please clarify something: would you announce new <hierarchy> >groups with <hierarchy> distribution or world distribution? >I don't think there would be any complaints about the former. I would have to use "world" distribution, for the simple reason that my machine does not get all the alternate hierarchies, so therefore I cannot post to them. --Greg
urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de (Matthias Urlichs) (08/15/89)
In news.admin, pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) writes:
<
< Alt.config works reasonably well for alt. GNU newsgroups are directly
< tied to mailing lists and are established by one "authority". I don't
< see a particular pressing need for an universal announce group. If it
< turns out that alt or bionet, or gnu need such a mechanism, they will
< create one within their own heirarchy. [...]
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who don't even get all of the
"mainstream" groups, let alone gnu or alt or whatever.
It would certainly help if we get to know what happens in the "alternate"
hierarchies, to keep the active files current and maybe even to be able to
persuade the guys holding the purse strings to loosen said strings a bit...
--
Claimer: Just a personal opinion, though probably not only my own.tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/15/89)
One problem with restricting other-hierarchy newgroup announcements to their own distributions (new BIONET group announcements only in dist:bionet, new ALT announcements only in dist:alt, etc), is that mainstream people who might well consider adding another hierarchy to their feed (if they knew what was in them these days) won't hear about it. Perhaps I never wanted a "biz" feed because it didn't look worth the disk space, but now there's a new "biz.solar" group and I'm in the solar heating business. If it's only announced in "biz.config" I'll miss it. Spaf's diffs are hard on the eyes as news. (Quick - what was added last month?!) The hair splitting about "allow but do not force" is vacuous. No one can force the alternate hierarchies to do anything. "Allow" is the only real decision that's ours to make. I think any new group with more than local distribution should be eligible to announce in news.announce.newgroups if so desired. -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt) (08/15/89)
In article <Aug.14.09.07.45.1989.12937@NET.BIO.NET> lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) writes: >Oh come on. Do you really think I want my users trying to parse >diffs? Well yes I think I do. Diff is a very useful tool and IF the users were to look at the diffs they might find a tool that they would see other uses for. However, I don't expect the ordinary user to be looking at those articles which post the changes in the various lists. That is my job (or the job of someone that works for me). I look for new newsgroups that should be available here. That is why we get bionet groups. And I know how to parse diffs. It is my considered opinion after reading this discussion that the announcements should be limited to newsgroups in the regular hierarchy. The monthly lists are adequate for announcing changes in the other hierarchies if they are not already avialable. If you already get a feed of the other hierarchy then you should get a feed of the group which that hierarchy uses for administrative announcements. -- Dan Schlitt Manager, Science Division Computer Facility dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu City College of New York dan@ccnysci.uucp New York, NY 10031 dan@ccnysci.bitnet (212)690-6868
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (08/16/89)
In article <5004@viscous.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > >I don't mind if n.a.n posts the newgroup messages... > >I don't, however, want to see n.a.n cluttered with calls for discussion... > >So keep the creation (and removal) messages as a public service, but have >that be about all. > > or am I the only > person to whom that > sounds reasonable? > Nope, I think that's just about right. "Time and space permitting", it might be neighborly for n.a.n to post proposals for new groups in other hierarchies, with a pointer to the appropriate group for discussion and voting in that hierarchy. This could be left to the discretion of the n.a.n moderator. -- Mark H. Weber ( markw@GVL.Unisys.COM [128.126.220.102] or ...!{gatech,purdue}!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw or ...!uunet!lgnp1!gvlv2!markw ) Unisys - Great Valley Laboratories PO Box 517 Paoli, PA 19301 (215) 648-7111
allbery@nc386.uucp (Brandon S. Allbery) (08/18/89)
As quoted from <4001@looking.on.ca> by brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton): +--------------- | But I am interested in finding out what new groups get created in these | hierarchies, so that I can decide if I want to get them fed to me. It | would be nice to just get announcements, with a short 5 line description for | each gorup, and not have to check for changes in a big list of one line | descriptions of everything. I think that so long as it's moderated, even | my enemies don't have to worry about it being abused by evil money grubbing | scum such as myself. +--------------- I emailed Greg a suggestion for an alternative solution; may as well present it to the net at large for consideration. Firstly, I don't think that newgroup announcements for non-"mainstream" groups belong in a "mainstream" newsgroup. I think this because any such messages should be distributed such that they are also visible in the non-mainstream hierarchy; and, while I don't know of any such sites, it's quite possible for someone to get an alt-only newsfeed, etc. Which leads to my suggestion: a "meta-hierarchy". (Call it "meta" just for the purposes of discussion.) This hierarchy would be considered to be a part of *all* news hierarchies, whether world, alt, gnu, biz, etc. It would be restricted to newsgroups and discussions concerning hierarchies, interaction between them, and maintenance of multiple-hierarchy systems (ncoast, for example, is a backbone for "alt" and also carries unix-pc, u3b, and pubnet, with gnu coming as soon as the 386 (currently "nc386", we FINALLY got all the problems worked out and our feeds are being moved even as I write this) is settled). A newsgroup for announcement of new newsgroups on any hierarchy would make sense in such a meta-hierarchy. Please note that I do *not* expect this hierarchy to make policy for any other hierarchy; but it would be a good place to discuss the real-world implementation of such policies across hierarchies -- say, cross-posting between biz and world. (Note that I'm using "world" to represent the mainstream Usenet, that being the most inclusive distribution for the mainstream.) Initially, only a few groups would be necessary (or desirable!), but there is room for expansion if/when it's needed/wanted. My thoughts on the initial configuration is to have meta.newgroups and meta.admin, with meta.admin as the primary newsgroup until/unless there is sufficient traffic to split it up. Comments, anyone? (Oh, if I missed any hierarchies in the Newsgroups: line or got the wrong newsgroup for some of them, please feel free to repost this to them -- obviously, what I'm proposing will affect all news hierarchies, so everyone ought to have some input into it.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu "Why do trans-atlantic transfers take so long?" "Electrons don't swim very fast." -john@minster.york.ac.uk and whh@PacBell.COM
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (08/19/89)
What's wrong with Brandon's concept is that news.* outranks every other hierarchy; thus it is the one place everyone can and should look for information about the most basic things happening to news. New groups, even outside the "mainstream," are the most important single event in the life of Usenet. Cross pollination is inherently a good thing. If you never got talk.* because you heard it was all BS, but then talk.religion.deist was formed and you didn't even know there were any other Deists left on the planet, you ought to have a chance to hear about it. The tests for admittance should be: Is the new group of potential interest to people who don't already get the hierarchy or pay attention to it? And is the hierarchy in question available for broad distribution? "Broad" might be kind of subjective -- biz.* ok, ba.* well hmmm, tor.* <BZZZZT!> -- but even within regional distributions it may still make sense to crosspost to n.a.n. WITH Distribution: SET APPROPRIATELY. Now would this prove too difficult to police, I dunno. I also think intermediate stuff should be kept out of n.a.n. entirely. Just this: for the mainstream -- one call for discussion (with followups directed to news.announce.newgroups.d, unmoderated), one call for votes, one announcement of success or failure. For the non-mainstream -- only announcements of success, subject to the tests mentioned above. If you don't even get or read biz.* now, you may be entitled to learn when something important happens there, but your vote is arguably worthless and you don't need to be able to argue about it beforehand. I would be much more concerned about the nuisance to the net of debates on creating mainstream groups than I would about the actual volume of one-time newgroup announcements, net wide, even counting minor distributions and hierarchies. The .d group should be created, and the charter here amended to welcome most everyone's birth announcements. -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (08/21/89)
In article <1989Aug18.030110.3223@nc386.uucp> allbery@nc386.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >Which leads to my suggestion: a "meta-hierarchy". (Call it "meta" just for >the purposes of discussion.) This hierarchy would be considered to be a part >of *all* news hierarchies, whether world, alt, gnu, biz, etc. > ... >Comments, anyone? I'm anyone... Since the alternate hierarchies exist within their own policies, distribution methods, purposes, et. al, it makes sense to me to make announcements of changes within those hierarchies, within those hierarchies. Anyone participating in those hierarchies can get those notifications in the relevant way. It only remains for the mainstream readers to know about changes in the hierarchy system itself (i.e., creation and deletion of whole hierarchies, and perhaps contact information). This is already covered in the 'alternative newsgroups' and 'mailing list' monthlies, which also list out all the individual gouprs in the other hierarchies. Anyone interested in alternate hierarchies can find out about them via the alternative newsgroups lists and can arrange to participate in those lists, whereupon they can participate in the business of those groups. It seems to me that this is the way it ought to work, and that a meta-group would be irrelevant. -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask (in mail!) about MV.COM
mem@zinn.MV.COM (Mark E. Mallett) (08/21/89)
In article <14549@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >One problem with restricting other-hierarchy newgroup announcements to >their own distributions (new BIONET group announcements only in >dist:bionet, new ALT announcements only in dist:alt, etc), is that >mainstream people who might well consider adding another hierarchy to >their feed (if they knew what was in them these days) won't hear about >it. >The hair splitting about "allow but do not force" is vacuous. No one >can force the alternate hierarchies to do anything. "Allow" is the only >real decision that's ours to make. The latter opinion seems to contradict the former motivation. If you can't enforce the posting of announcements as suggested, then those who want to be up to date on other group hierarchies will have to look elsewhere anyway. If it's of only marginal importance to see these announcements, that might not be a problem. But the whole point of this discussion seems to be that it *is* important to see them. I still believe that announcements belong within their own scope, regardless. -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett Zinn Computer Co/ PO Box 4188/ Manchester NH/ 03103 Bus. Phone: 603 645 5069 Home: 603 424 8129 BIX: mmallett uucp: mem@zinn.MV.COM ( ...{decvax|elrond|harvard}!zinn!mem ) Northern MA and Southern NH consultants: Ask (in mail!) about MV.COM