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