mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) (11/01/90)
In the referenced article, dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) writes: > > (On Dec. 5, 1989, I posted the final results on the vote for creation of > comp.groupware and comp.groupware.f and indicated the groups were created. > Since I did not have the ability to issue newgroup control commands myself, I > followed the instructions in the Guidelines and sent a request to the address > newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu. I later asked the staff at my site and the other vote > collectors to create the groups. Weeks elapsed before comp.groupware was > actually created. The following exchanges occurred during this period. They > illustrate what I was trying to do with the new groups, and also the social > relations governing new group creation that are normally hidden from the view > of the typical user. <All messages remain copyrighted by their authors. > They are published here because they are part of the "official" business > of Usenet.>) > [750 lines of correspondence deleted.] Precisely what is your point, Mr. Stodolsky? The correspondence establishes the following: that the group of experienced Usenet administrators who were on the newgroup mailing list did not believe that the Guidelines provided for a simultaneous creation of a second group (comp.groupware.f); that it would be unwise, based on precedent and custom, to create such a group (particularly given its unusual name); that comp.groupware itself was created, and in the ten months since the creation of comp.groupware it has had a very low volume of articles (336 at this site). In the time since December there has been no outcry demanding the creation of comp.groupware.f nor has anyone else successfully proposed such an unusual group structure for another topic. What is the purpose of bringing this all up 10 months later? [Followups to news.groups, please.] -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb