pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) (10/13/89)
If this has been proposed before, I appologise for beating a dead horse. I'd like to propose a new step be added to the newgroup creation procedure. I feel that a proposed group should spend at *least* 90 days as a discussion thread in the proper top level .misc group of the proposed name (yes, that means the sci.aquaria people get to post in sci.misc, not rec.pets.misc... we can be purests during that time). If there is not enough interest warranted to maintain a steady worthwhile thread in the group for that period of time, the group isn't worth creating. That's the idea, you may feel free to hash out the details of "what is a worthwhile thread". It at least should point out the groups that deserve to clearly fail (and I don't mean rec.pets.fish, I do mean groups looking to start their own newsgroup when a mailing list is appropriate.) People seem to forget that a news posting goes out to every damn USENET site. This is horrible wastage for low-readership groups.
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (10/13/89)
In article <1989Oct13.004003.5418@ginger.acc.com> pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina) writes: |I'd like to propose a new step be added to the newgroup creation procedure. |I feel that a proposed group should spend at *least* 90 days as a discussion |thread in the proper top level .misc group of the proposed name . . . | |If there is not enough interest warranted to maintain a steady worthwhile |thread in the group for that period of time, the group isn't worth creating. This would have prohibited the splitting out of comp.sys.mac.programmers, comp.sys.mac.hardware [)-:], rec.arts.tv.uk, and sci.med.physics, among others. I don't think this is a great idea. /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 |
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/14/89)
In article <46889@bbn.COM>, levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: > [90-day trial period in .misc] would have prohibited the splitting > out of comp.sys.mac.programmers, comp.sys.mac.hardware [)-:], > rec.arts.tv.uk, and sci.med.physics, among others. > > I don't think this is a great idea. One flaw does not invalidate the whole idea. This is basically the Trial Newsgroup concept I proposed weeks ago. One thing my proposal had that this one doesn't was the convention of including the trial group's name enclosed in square brackets on the subject line to distinguish it from regular .misc traffic. Anyway, when this flaw was later pointed out, I amended the "rule" so it wouldn't apply to splits. I still think this would be an excellent way for a truly new group to demonstrate its viability. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
dwj@acd4.UUCP ( Dan Johnson ) (10/16/89)
In article <167@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >In article <46889@bbn.COM>, levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: >> [90-day trial period in .misc] would have prohibited the splitting >> out of comp.sys.mac.programmers, comp.sys.mac.hardware [)-:], >> rec.arts.tv.uk, and sci.med.physics, among others. >> >> I don't think this is a great idea. > >One flaw does not invalidate the whole idea. >[...] >Anyway, when this flaw was later pointed out, I amended the "rule" so >it wouldn't apply to splits. An alternate suggestion would be to make sure that any proposal was *announced* in the next higher level group, or a .misc group in the absence of an actual group at the next level up (e.g., there is no group simply named "sci"). Hence, the proposal for rec.arts.tv.uk would have been mentioned in rec.arts.tv, if it hadn't been before the announcement in news.groups (that was before my time). The proposal and discussion for soc.culture.asean seems to be cross-posted to soc.culture.misc (good). A *serious* proposal for news.avian would be announced in news.misc. Rec.pets.aquaria should be announced in rec.pets if that proposal becomes serious. And the proposal for sci.aquaria should be announced in sci.misc, if it has not been already (I don't always notice the list of cross-posts). Of course, under the circumstances, this last could amount to an additional invitation to the current flame war :-(. In general, this would not affect splits. Only jumps across the hierarchy and completely new groups would need to worry about this. Btw, I intend to vote NO to sci.aquaria. (My $0.02) -- Daniel W. Johnson Applied Computing Devices, Inc. UUCP: ...!uunet!acd4!dwj Earth: 39 25 02 N / 87 19 55 W (approx.) ARPA: acd4!dwj@uunet.uu.net Compu$erve: >INTERNET:dwj@acd4.UUCP :-| - this space unintentionally left blank -