webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/30/88)
In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes:
< Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be
< moderated. The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least
< talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc.
< ...
< This would make it simple for administrators who feel that unmoderated
< groups are too noisy and unpredictable to be worth carrying can easily
< drop them, while administrators who enjoy the unrestricted free flow
< of information can keep them.
Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.*
would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various
descendants of mod.*. I guess we can add you to the list of people who
opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.''
---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) (07/01/88)
In article <Jun.29.13.31.49.1988.17925@porthos.rutgers.edu> webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: %In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: %< Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be %< moderated. The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least %< talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc. %< ... % %Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.* %would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various %descendants of mod.*. I guess we can add you to the list of people who %opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.'' % %---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) It would be similar to the old system in that there would be an obvious distinction between moderated and non-moderated groups. However, the old system had a nearly flat naming structure, compared to the current hierarchical organization. The mod vs. net distinction was the ONLY clear distinction that was made - the current groupings for comp, rec, soc, etc. are a major step forward. I do not want to lose the descriptive power current of the current naming scheme. Moving a group into talk does not mean that it would go back to its pre-Renaming one-dimensional name with net changed to talk, but would keep its current multi-level name with talk prepended. I did not oppose the ``Great Renaming Rationalization'', I approved it whole-heartedly and still do. -- John Macdonald UUCP: lsuc!jmm (for now)
haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) (07/01/88)
In article <Jun.29.13.31.49.1988.17925@porthos.rutgers.edu> webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: ]In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: ][ Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be ][ moderated. The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least ][ talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc. ] ]Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.* ]would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various ]descendants of mod.*. I guess we can add you to the list of people who ]opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.'' ] ]---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) i agree with John_M, if there isn't someone willing to keep the S/N ratio high, why bother wasting money shipping it around? i think this is alot like the 100 vote rule, if 100 people aren't willing to participate in a group, why bother? as for putting the groups in talk.all, why not? where else would you have them moved? personally, i think there should be a ninety day waiting period, and if the group doesn't find a moderator, rmgroup it. - john. ps - would someone tell mel to make those article id's a little longer ;-) -- Joe Bob Willie Big "D" Oil and Gas UUCP: ...!killer!rpp386!jfh jfh@rpp386.uucp :DOMAIN **** Trivia question of the day: VYARZERZIMANIMORORSEZASSEZANSERAREORSES? **** "You are in a twisty little maze of UUCP connections, all alike" -- fortune
webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (07/03/88)
In article <231@pigs.UUCP>, haugj@pigs.UUCP (Joe Bob Willie) writes: > ... > i agree with John_M, if there isn't someone willing to keep the S/N ratio > high, why bother wasting money shipping it around? i think this is alot > like the 100 vote rule, if 100 people aren't willing to participate in a > group, why bother? Actually, there is a simpler way. Don't automatically move any news from one site to another. Instead, only make available to the next site messages that your own readers have read and decided were worth passing on. After all, it is not like things are ``urgent'' or something. And if no one at a site even thought the message was interesting, why should that site propagate it into the net? That way you don't have to tie down a few hundred people to pamper the laziness of tens of thousands. Spread the work around. ---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)