peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/21/88)
Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: (1) Create the group in "alt". (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. This is loosely based on the ANSI X3J11 rules. The last requirement is to take care of the recent lack of backbone in the backbone. By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? -- -- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. Remote UUCP: hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter.
vnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James) (06/22/88)
In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: > (1) Create the group in "alt". > (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. > (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. I like. This is bloody brilliant. Give the man a job. -- Later y'all, {vnend@engr, cn0001dj@ukcc, mc.david@ukpr}.uky.edu; Vnend: Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. {any vertibrae}!ukma!ukecc!vnend "Of course they can't shoot it down, the shows name is "Airwolf", not "Antiaircraft Gun!"
wes@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) (06/22/88)
In article <960@ficc.UUCP>, peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: > > (1) Create the group in "alt". > (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. > (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. > Yes!!!! Rah, rah, rah! Let's do it! Does anyone have objections to this? Let's consider it....seriously. Wes [Finally, a way out of the argument jungle] Morgan -- wes@engr.uky.edu OR wes%ukecc.uucp@ukma OR ...{rutgers, uunet}!ukma!ukecc!wes We can stomp out weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu in our lifetime.... but we need *YOUR* help!
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/22/88)
In article <2474@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>, wes@engr (Wes Morgan) writes: >> (1) Create the group in "alt". >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >Does anyone have objections to this? Let's consider it....seriously. No, let's not. alt.* is a very fine hierarchy, and does not want to become the dumping ground for the rest of the net's newsgroup problems. Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the official net.sewer. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Steven Grimm) (06/22/88)
In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: > (1) Create the group in "alt". > (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. ^^^^^^ I thought lots of sites didn't get the alt groups? Unless that changes (which would defeat the whole purpose of this suggestion, as the new groups would eat the same amount of net bandwidth as if they had been created the old way), wouldn't new groups go unnoticed by most, if not all, of their potential audience? > (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >-- Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. It is a good idea, though, except for the above problem. --- These are my opinions, and in no way reflect those of UCSC, which are wrong. Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st koreth@ssyx.ucsc.edu ...!ucbvax!ucscc!ssyx!koreth
skyler@violet.berkeley.edu (06/23/88)
In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: > > (1) Create the group in "alt". > (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. > (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of readership. Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly. Hence, a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind of distribution and vice versa. >By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? The net stupidity police. -Trish Roberts
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (06/23/88)
In article <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <2474@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>, wes@engr (Wes Morgan) writes: >>> (1) Create the group in "alt". >>> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >>> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >>Does anyone have objections to this? Let's consider it....seriously. >No, let's not. alt.* is a very fine hierarchy, and does not want to >become the dumping ground for the rest of the net's newsgroup problems. >Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the >official net.sewer. Well at least we could be polite about it. How about a new.* hierarchy. With the same distribution rules as alt.*. Don't send it to a site unless asked for. Anyone can feel free to create new groups to try out a theme or discussion. If it's successful they can petition to be moved into a more permanent distribution - alt - comp - rec, or wherever is appropriate. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/24/88)
In article <1821@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >>Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the >>official net.sewer. >Well at least we could be polite about it. No. That's the whole point! >How about a new.* hierarchy. With the same distribution rules as alt.*. A duh.* hierarchy tends to *discourage* people from just creating a newsgroup because they think such-and-such a topic is fascinating. Who knows? I suppose it might attract self-proclaimed idiots. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/24/88)
In article <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.UUCP writes: > In article <2474@ukecc.engr.uky.edu>, wes@engr (Wes Morgan) writes: > >I said: > >> (1) Create the group in "alt". > >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. > >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. > >Does anyone have objections to this? Let's consider it....seriously. > No, let's not. No, let's. Come on, Weemba, just because you consider something seriously, doesn't mean you have to adopt it as is. That sort of thing only happens in the comic books. We can have a serious discussion without you giving up any territory to start with. > alt.* is a very fine hierarchy, and does not want to > become the dumping ground for the rest of the net's newsgroup problems. I didn't suggest that it should. I just thought that since "alt" has much less restrictive newsgroup creation rules (like, none) people with legitimate groups could try them out there before promoting them to real usenet status. > Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the > official net.sewer. I'm not proposing a net.sewer, here. I'm proposing a provisional group hierarchy. How about "new." or "trial.", if it so offends you to have alt.sex and alt.drugs sharing name space with alt.comp.women. > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 What's a Brahms Gang? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva. -- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W. -- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (06/24/88)
In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes: > Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has > a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of > readership. Good point. Maybe another distribution might be better. A special one just for this purpose, perhaps? > >By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? > The net stupidity police. For or against? -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva. -- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W. -- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/25/88)
In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > (1) Create the group in "alt". > (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. > (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. I like this idea, although I don't think "alt" should be used, but rather a new distribution, called "tryout" or something. And of course, #2 should read "Demonstrate READERSHIP and friendliness", since the last thing we need are more high volume groups. Unless you meant it to say, "Demonstate low volume and friendliness." All people receiving the tryout distribution would be required to run a reader counting program to give truly accurate ratings. Groups in the tryout distribution might have a time limit on them, possibly. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
" Maynard) (06/25/88)
In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP writes: >In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? > >The net stupidity police. Trish, you should have stopped one word sooner: "The net stupidity." Not too grammatically correct, but much more accurate. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
" Maynard) (06/25/88)
In article <985@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.UUCP writes: >> Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the >> official net.sewer. > >I'm not proposing a net.sewer, here. I'm proposing a provisional group >hierarchy. How about "new." or "trial.", if it so offends you to have >alt.sex and alt.drugs sharing name space with alt.comp.women. Now, that's a good one. Here's Weemba the Obnoxious bitching about Purity of Alt.Essense, right after taking many others to task for complaining about Purity of Comp.Essense [sic]. Then again, whi said that Obnoxious Math Grad Students had to be consistent? Maybe he's afraid he'll violate Godel's Law? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/25/88)
In article <549@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Now, that's a good one. Here's Weemba the Obnoxious bitching about >Purity of Alt.Essense, right after taking many others to task for >complaining about Purity of Comp.Essense [sic]. Of course! It's a little known secret that alt.* has the highest S/N on the net. I'd like to keep it that way. The flames over the alt.birthright pro- posal are proof that a lot of alt.people feel that way too, and DO NOT want to see alt.* become a dumping ground for ANY old nonsense. Since there *is* so much social and political stuff running in comp.*, from particular newsgroups like comp.{risks,org.usenix} to the endless commentar- ies and flames about particular companies and shareware and so on all over the comp.* map, all the arguments that this one more newsgroup was violat- ing some unwritten "technical! technical!" requirement were horseshit. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/25/88)
In article <985@ficc.UUCP>, peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.UUCP writes: > > Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the > > official net.sewer. > I'm not proposing a net.sewer, here. I'm proposing a provisional group > hierarchy. How about "new." or "trial.", if it so offends you to have > alt.sex and alt.drugs sharing name space with alt.comp.women. I think "new" or "trial" would be much more appropriate... That way, people would understand that we weren't about to promote alt.drugs to the "real groups". Also, it would: help us keep track of what was being suggested, allow us to not recieve, as a whole, the "suggested groups" hierarchy, and maybe, just maybe, make things work better as a whole. (Would we then have, also, an "old." hierarchy for groups that are about to be shut down? :-) -- Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... "But why should I type "rm -r $HOME" if I want to play trek???" J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (06/27/88)
In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> (1) Create the group in "alt". >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has >a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of >readership. Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly. Hence, >a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind >of distribution and vice versa. ah well now ... that's an interesting sort of "discrimination". That because a hierarchy has some bad apples that it's all bad. I suppose that the recipes group over there is full of bizarre-oids? (I don't know, I don't read that group, but I know that when it was mod.recipes it was a very fine well-run group). And alt.sources is certainly overrun with huge numbers of strange people too (:-)). And alt.sca has been doing very well thank you, even over in the "net.sewer". And alt appears to have a "bad propogation" because not everybody knows how easy it is to get. Also, probably NONE of the non-North American sites are getting it.. I'm not sure if those three steps are correct. For example, at the beginning of a groups life, the name of the group has *a*lot* to do with what happens in the group. A problem we seem to have is that most newsgroup proposals have something "wrong" with their names. With a name which doesn't really match too well the originators idea, the people could run with it and make it something else entirely. Whether or not that's a good thing would depend on the circumstance. >>By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? > >The net stupidity police. -- <---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu> <---- s.k.a.: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <---- A proud supporter of the Marcel Marceau Foundation <------ Because a mime is a terrible thing to waste
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (06/27/88)
In article <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >Over in alt.config I've been proposing the duh.* hierarchy to be the >official net.sewer. 'duh' isn't very descriptive about the true trash. How about 'sewer.*'? -- Glen Overby Bitnet: ncoverby@ndsuvax UUCP: uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (06/27/88)
In article <985@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I didn't suggest that it should. I just thought that since "alt" has >much less restrictive newsgroup creation rules (like, none) people with >legitimate groups could try them out there before promoting them to >real usenet status. And who says that alt isn't "real" Usenet? From my point of view, it's as real as any of the rest of it, and a damn sight more interesting than most. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) (06/27/88)
The basic idea is a sound one. However, since the counter argument
about the limited distribution of the "alt." news groups, why not give
some thought to this minor change. Instead of giving a new news group
a chance to "prove" its validity in alt, why not creat a new subtree
called "news.probate.whatever" with the understanding and agreement of
the community that the probationary news groups need to "prove" their
value to the community before they can become a part of the "normal"
distribution tree.
I will make no attempt to define "normal", "prove" or "value", that is
up to the net population at large.
Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc.
..{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr | 9990 Lee Highway
Sysop, Fido 109/74 The Bear's Den (703) 671-0598 | Suite 481
Sysop, Fido 109/483 The Pot of Gold (703) 359-6549 | Fairfax, VA 22030
============================================================================rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (06/28/88)
From article <1779@looking.UUCP>, by brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton): > In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> (1) Create the group in "alt". >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. > > I like this idea, although I don't think "alt" should be used, but rather > a new distribution, called "tryout" or something. Part of the problem with a 'trial' distribution is: 1) It's not likely to get a very strong distribution (or even connectivity, for that mater) which will REALLY skew results. Many people won't even get the Create message. 2) If it DOES get a good distribution, then it almost defeats the original reason for creating the distribution group. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (06/29/88)
In article <3187@edm.UUCP> rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: >From article <1779@looking.UUCP>, by brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton): >> In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> I like this idea, although I don't think "alt" should be used, but rather >> a new distribution, called "tryout" or something. > >Part of the problem with a 'trial' distribution is: > 1) It's not likely to get a very strong distribution (or even >connectivity, for that mater) which will REALLY skew results. Many >people won't even get the Create message. > 2) If it DOES get a good distribution, then it almost defeats the original >reason for creating the distribution group. I hadn't thought of the trial distribution in this manner. I assumed that very few sites would take trial.all, but instead if a system manager saw that trial.blimps was now available and he was interested he would ask for that explicitly. So eventually a hopefully large number of sites would be receiving the new group. At some point it would be moved from trial.blimp to rec.blimps or perhaps alt.blimps or biz.goodyear. This whole discussion really boils down to one of alternate backbones. Many unix sites don't particulary care about the volume, they will take virtually anything that you throw at them - as long as they don't have to pay for it! For UseNet to survive more sites are going to have to start paying for delivery of their own news and mail messages. Most likely regional nets will play an important part in this. While many of the arpanet type sites and educational sites will continue to get feeds and mail at low cost (or at least embedded in part of a larger budget) many of the newer commercial or "hobbyist" sites are going to have to organize themselves to take advantage of low cost long distance and TrailBlazers to route their own mail around. I'm busy scurrying away in this part of the world setting up a mechanism for doing this. Nothing in a great hurry but at least if we lost our major feed (via ubc) we would have alternatives where a year ago we didn't. By this time next year I hope to be routing a significant portion of the uucp type mail for this area to offload it from ubc. It's going to be fun! -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (07/01/88)
In article <1821@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >>>> (1) Create the group in "new". >>>> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >>>> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >Well at least we could be polite about it. Perhaps I may point out that you are talking to Weemba. :-) >How about a new.* hierarchy. With the same distribution rules as alt.*. >Don't send it to a site unless asked for. Anyone can feel free to create new >groups to try out a theme or discussion. If it's successful they can >petition to be moved into a more permanent distribution - alt - comp - rec, >or wherever is appropriate. Nice. I request one extra rule, however: no group can stay longer than three months. After that it has to move somewhere else, and will be consistently rmgrouped. This way people will feel less need to disconnect from the hierarchy, as they know the group they have problems with is going to go away soon anyway. Perhaps it would still be a good idea if it were the Backbone that issued the newgroup messages. This to prevent little children from using it as their playyard. [BTW, why do USsians refer to children as "kids", and to kids as "Tommy goats"?] -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) Never define a word before you know its meaning
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/01/88)
peter@ficc.UUCP writes:
Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule:
(1) Create the group in "alt".
(2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness.
(3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it.
The only problem I see is that (2b) would probably cause a retroactive
rmgroup of news.admin and news.groups.
--Karlmack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (07/01/88)
In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: >> >> (1) Create the group in "alt". >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. > >Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has >a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of >readership. Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly. Hence, >a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind >of distribution and vice versa. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the alt hierarchy. How about a "trial" hierarchy? Hey, Backbone! Yeah, you. Will you propagate the trial hierarchy? For maximum flexibility, newsgroup proposers (proposeurs?) could choose between requesting a group in the standard (Spaffordized) hierarchy, with discussion period and voting, and immediately creating the group in the trial hierarchy. >>By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? > >The net stupidity police. Pity they can't decide whether to promote or prevent it. >-Trish Roberts Dave Mack Speaker for the Left Hand of the Net
" Maynard) (07/01/88)
In article <1841@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >At some point it would be moved from trial.blimp to rec.blimps or >perhaps alt.blimps or biz.goodyear. No, no, no...the proper place in the hierarchy for that one would be rec.aviation.airships. :-) Sorry, but after the comp.women misnaming war died down, I couldn't pass this one up... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced!
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (07/02/88)
mack@inco.uucp writes:
It wouldn't necessarily have to be the alt hierarchy. How about a "trial"
hierarchy? Hey, Backbone! Yeah, you. Will you propagate the trial
hierarchy?
I'll propagate darn near anything. It matters very little to me
whether another item lands in my sys file or not.
Now as to whether the whole backbone group would carry it, I dunno.
Sys file complexity matters much more to some than others. Consider
the site with 160 newsfeeds - it matters to that site's admin a lot.
Your best bet is to write mail to backbone@{purdue,rutgers}.edu and
ask. When having lunch with the rest of the backbone a week ago
Wednesday, I was a little bit surprised to find that some backbone
folks have really extensive kill files and hence don't read many
discussions in news.{groups,admin} after the 2nd or 3rd day. There is
a certain point to that; the constant rehash-of-rehash-of-rehash of
complaints and countercomplaints that is typical here makes it rather
pointless for lots of people. I don't use kill files myself; but I do
`n' through an awful lot at times. The effect is similar.
[Now, how many people have I angered by saying that there are backbone
admins who don't read Every Single Word of news.{groups,admin}? Lots,
probably. Do you think it's justified? I do. Consider volume, and
trying to get some real news management done once in a while.]
By the way, I find myself Really Fond of the idea of maximum lifetime
limits within the proposed {new,trial,whatever}.* distribution.
Someone suggested 3 months max; personally, I'd like to pull it back
to 1 or 2. Also, if it were to exist (I'm not suggesting its creation
tomorrow or anything, mind you), I'd like the trial newsgroups to be
created as trial.full-name-in-regular-namespace, e.g., a group like
trial.soc.widgets as the trial group for soc.widgets. Then you can
spend part of your time arguing over whether the place where it landed
in trial would be appropriate without the leading string `trial.' One
hopes that such argument would *stay* there, too, and out of news.groups.
For maximum flexibility, newsgroup proposers (proposeurs?) could choose
between requesting a group in the standard (Spaffordized) hierarchy,
with discussion period and voting, and immediately creating the group
in the trial hierarchy.
Um, that's liable to cause some troubles, methinks. Consider the
problems of extremely fast proliferation of newsgroups within the
{new,trial}.* hierarchy. I could find that somewhat objectionable,
enough that I might stop carrying it. I'd like at least a certain
amount of solid support for it first.
Just for grins, how many people out there have run into the 512-line
limit on your active file already? I recompiled 3 or 4 weeks ago for
a 1024-line limit. I actually hit 512 with a local newgroup
yesterday.
--Karlskyler@violet.berkeley.edu (07/02/88)
In article <9775@g.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: >In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >>Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has >>a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of >>readership. Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly. Hence, >>a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind >>of distribution and vice versa. > >ah well now ... that's an interesting sort of "discrimination". That because >a hierarchy has some bad apples that it's all bad. I suppose that the >recipes group over there is full of bizarre-oids? This article is deeply confusing. Who mentioned discrimination? Perhaps someone did in a different context? Then, pray tell, why apply those words in this context? Putting a group in alt would not be discrimination. It would, quite simply, not give the information which a decision on a group requires. This has nothing to do with bad or good apples. It has to do with who reads alt groups. Starting a group in alt will give you an unrepresentative sample. -Trish Roberts
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/04/88)
In article <11582@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Putting a group in alt would not be discrimination. It would, quite >simply, not give the information which a decision on a group requires. Exactly the opposite, I would say, although I still suggest "trial" instead of "alt". Having a 'trial' distribution of *deliberately* limited distribution is exactly what we want. You get the most adventuresome, tolerant sites trying out the group without bothering (and costing) the entire net. If a group can't survive with the more willing sites in the trial distribution, then it is a very good sign it would not do proportionately better when extrapolated out. (By better, I mean in readership of course, not posting volume. High posting volume should be immediate cause for not continuing A trial group, in my opinion.) Anyway, the whole point is to limit the trial distribution. That's what's good about it! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/09/88)
In article <1809@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <11582@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >>Putting a group in alt would not be discrimination. It would, quite >>simply, not give the information which a decision on a group requires. > >Exactly the opposite, I would say, although I still suggest "trial" >instead of "alt". > >Having a 'trial' distribution of *deliberately* limited distribution is >exactly what we want. You get the most adventuresome, tolerant sites >trying out the group without bothering (and costing) the entire net. Unless these adventuresome, tolerant (AT) sites all lie in one subnet, I don't see how they could receive trial.* without costing the net. The backbone would have to carry trial.* or it wouldn't get around at all; also the secondary sites who feed these AT folks would have to carry it, albeit at the explicit request of AT sysadmins. Ultimately a significant fraction of the secondaries would probably be involved, especially if trial.* were an umbrella for trial groups of every description. The ones who would save would be conservative leaf sites, who would gain the privilege of proceeding in ignorance about new groups until the control message arrived out of the blue. I just hope we don't miss useful insights on group formation and direction in exchange for this amount of savings. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/12/88)
In article <5412@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP writes: > Unless these adventuresome, tolerant (AT) sites all lie in one subnet, > I don't see how they could receive trial.* without costing the net. Well, no matter what your group is I'm sure uunet will carry it. That means that it will have great distribution, subject to the adventurous sites paying for it. Perhaps uunet can be convinced to publish statistics about the number of sites that get them to bang each trial group out of their sys file entry. -- -- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva. -- U Ferranti International Controls Corporation. -- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W. -- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.