jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) (02/02/90)
Over the last few years, it has come to the point where the USENET is
expanding beyond its original non-commercial groups whose articles
were considered public domain and free. New news hierarchies have
appeared when conflicts arose. When USENET prohibited commercial
postings, "biz" showed up. When USENET proclaimed "democracy" and
rules, "alt" split out. And when USENET discouraged copyright news
articles, ClariNet appeared.
Of course, there have also been alternate hierarchies that have never
been associated with USENET proper; for instance, internal company
networks.
I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing. Given the
usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there
couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own
subject, rules, and distribution.
Unfortunately, the fact that the USENET was the first on the network, and
that it is the majority in both number and volume of articles on the network,
creates the awkward situation of USENET consisting of seven top-level groups
(comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk), while other "lesser" networks are
composed of a top-level name with their newsgroups beneath it. This creates
the illusion that "USENET is the network," where in fact it is only a part
of it. Due to this illusion, when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is
added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is
polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning
an uncool operating system.
I would like to make a few suggestions for handling this situation:
1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci,
and talk) under the top-level name "usenet." This would separate
USENET from other hierarchies, reducing arguments, misunderstandings,
copyright violations, etc. This is obviously a major suggestion,
possibly even more wide-scale than the Great Renaming from "net.*" groups
into what we currently have.
2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy. The following groups
(plus, of course, all the "real" groups of the hierarchy) would be
recommended under each news hierarchy:
admin.groups # discussion of new and current groups
admin.config # network configuration of hierarchy
admin.stats # statistics of various types for this hierarchy
announce # general announcements for the hierarchy
newusers # instructions for new users of the hierarchy
test # test messages
3. In accordance to item #2, rename the USENET "news" groups not just to
"usenet.news.*" but to "usenet.admin.*". Rename the current "news.admin"
to something else. This will also help fix the occasional problem of
new users thinking that "news" means headline news, rather than
USENET administration.
4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling
a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy,
including groups in hierarchy, contact information, average traffic flow,
and so on. Registration of a hierarchy would work somewhat like the
current UUCP map registration, where registration, while not required,
is encouraged for reducing name conflicts. Even proprietary hierarchies,
like "sun.*", could be registered, but would not be available to the
public. The maintainer of the Registry would be some person on any
of the well-connected networks. The contents of the Registry would
be posted periodically to some particular newsgroup in any hierarchy
that wished to receive the information.
What do people think about this proposal? I know that some of it might
prove unworkable, at least right now, like putting all the USENET groups
into "usenet.*". On the other hand, the News Hierarchy Registry would be
useful even if nothing else was changed. It could be started immediately,
and would include all the current hierarchies. I am willing to be the
initial maintainer of such a Registery.
--
John Labovitz Domain: jsl@barn.com Phone: 707/823-2919
Barn Communications UUCP: ..!pacbell!barn!jsl