[news.groups] New Groups Needed?

amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/22/89)

Call for discussion:

Should we split news.groups into two parts? I have in mind

news.groups         {For calls, proposals, results}

news.groups.d       {For discussion of group names, voting rules,
                     philosophy of moderation, etc.}

For example, I would have this particular posting in news.groups
but all the responses and subsequent discussion in the subgroup
news.groups.d;

I think a lot of people who just want to know if their group made it
or who to send the votes to might be relieved not to have to sift
through all the possible kill variations on ichthyology, or is that
ich-theology?

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) (10/22/89)

In article <460@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:
)Call for discussion:
)
)Should we split news.groups into two parts? I have in mind
)
)news.groups         {For calls, proposals, results}
)
)news.groups.d       {For discussion of group names, voting rules,
)                     philosophy of moderation, etc.}
)Andrew Mullhaupt

   As many people will no doubt point out, this split has *already* been
accomplished. Your "news.groups" exists as "news.announce.newgroups", and
"news.groups.d" is here.

David Goldfarb    goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu   (Insert standard disclaimer)
"Things can be replaced. Lives cannot."
          -- Data, in "The Ensigns of Command", by Melinda Snodgrass

russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/24/89)

In article <460@s5.Morgan.COM> amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) writes:
>Call for discussion:
>
>Should we split news.groups into two parts? I have in mind
>
>news.groups         {For calls, proposals, results}
If I'm not mistaken, that is what news.announce.newgroups is for.
--
--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu