peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/17/89)
Currently the following hierarchies exist, with controlling bodies: news Usenet guidelines comp Usenet guidelines soc Usenet guidelines sci Usenet guidelines rec Usenet guidelines talk Usenet guidelines misc Usenet guidelines alt Nobody gnu The Free Software Foundation clari Brad Templeton inet Internet (not really a hierarchy) bionet Eliot Lear biz Consensus pubnet Bill Wisner unix-pc Various u3b Len Rose The usenet hierarchies are getting too unruly. They're too big. How about farming them out, delegating naming and group creation authority to various people or other groups. For example, most of the comp.sys.* groups could be safely delegated to a user group or vendor. It should be pretty safe to allocate a bunch of people to create new groups in talk.religion.* and talk.politics.*, and so on. CMU could administer comp.soft-sys.andrew. It would probably be a good idea to consolidate some of the second-level groups (comp.emacs, etcetera) into second-level hierarchies first. Also, the comp.sources.* and comp.binaries.* shoudl be moved to the appropriate comp.sys.* hierarchy. Once a group is under delegated control, you should go to the controlling body to get a group created, destroyed, moderated, unmoderated, and so on. If they prove refractory, then you can appeal to another hierarchy or go by the guidelines. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (11/19/89)
This is probably another forgery but, just in case: In article <7002@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Currently the following hierarchies exist, with controlling bodies: > > news Usenet guidelines > comp Usenet guidelines > soc Usenet guidelines > sci Usenet guidelines > rec Usenet guidelines > talk Usenet guidelines > misc Usenet guidelines > alt Nobody > gnu The Free Software Foundation > clari Brad Templeton > inet Internet (not really a hierarchy) > bionet Eliot Lear > biz Consensus > pubnet Bill Wisner > unix-pc Various > u3b Len Rose > >The usenet hierarchies are getting too unruly. They're too big. How >about farming them out, delegating naming and group creation authority >to various people or other groups. OK, this sounds like a good idea. I'll take news, comp and sci. Whoever wants the rest can have 'em. As the Overlord of News, Comp, and Sci, my first edict is: Sci.Aquaria shall henceforth be known as Sci.Fish-Behind-Glass. And my second edict is: Comp.Unix.Xenix shall henceforth be known as Comp.Unix.Imitation.Bad. And my third edict is: News.Admin, News.Groups, and News.Announce.Important shall be collapsed into a single newsgroup named News.Dave. Obviously, it will be moderated. The newgroup and rmgroup messages implementing these edicts shall be forthcoming in the next few hours. I will think up more improvements in the Sacred Namespace after I've had my nap. Your Benevolent Overlord for News, Comp, and Sci, Dave Mack
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/20/89)
In article <1989Nov19.063639.2490@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > This is probably another forgery but, just in case: No, it's real. > OK, this sounds like a good idea. I'll take news, comp and sci. > Whoever wants the rest can have 'em. If you'd bothered to read the rest of the proposal, I was talking about things like comp.os.vms, comp.org.usenix, comp.sys.amiga, and so on. Where an obvious and appropriate controlling body can be found. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/22/89)
As quoted from <7053@ficc.uu.net> by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | In article <1989Nov19.063639.2490@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: | > OK, this sounds like a good idea. I'll take news, comp and sci. | > Whoever wants the rest can have 'em. | | If you'd bothered to read the rest of the proposal, I was talking about | things like comp.os.vms, comp.org.usenix, comp.sys.amiga, and so on. Where an | obvious and appropriate controlling body can be found. +--------------- I have to agree with Peter. His proposal is just a generalization of two existing mechanisms: moderation, and independent top-level hierarchies. After all, control of a (single) newsgroup is a necessary (but not sufficient) part of moderation. Generalization being better than specialization in most cases, I'd say go for it. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.