chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/27/89)
With all of the discussion of the name space, deleting groups, how and why to create groups and other related topics, a thought just occurred to me. We've been trying, on and off, to set up some form of deletion proposal for years -- always unsuccessful. Maybe the problem is that we're looking at it from too narrow a view. newsgroup deletion, unlike newsgroup creation, isn't an individual situation -- it's part of a larger, overall philosophy for the network. Maybe the answer is looking at things from a macro-standpoint. Rather than try to figure out how/when to delete a newsgroup, we should every so often sit down and evaluate the namespace and see how it can be tweaked and improved -- maybe once a year or every 18 months or whenever people decide it's needed. The way I think it could work is this: someone in charge takes feedback on what people think are problems in the name space -- misnamed groups, misplaced groups, etc. They filter it all out and decide which things really ought to be dealt with and then put up a consensus proposal, which is then discussed and refined until everyone generally agrees it's a good thing. Then we do it. The proposals would be things like: o rename rec.wobegon rec.radio.npr o rename rec.ham-radio rec.radio.amateur o delete comp.ai.shells o unmoderate comp.sys.sun o delete comp.lang.forth.mac o create new top level domain arts.all o shift comp.society.women to soc domain o create rec.birds.watching & rec.birds.pet o delete comp.std.internat Anyway, you get the idea. This would the the time to consider new top-level domains for future expansion, moving things from one domain to another, deleting domains (hah!), deleting groups and generally optimizing the name space and taking a longer-term look at the future of USENET. Rather than arguing each nit-picking detail ad infinitum, we could put it all together, fix it up and then get it done all at once, reducing the lead time *and* the amount of noise and nastiness that goes on with all of this. And no, I don't propose putting it to a general vote, although I could probably be convinced. Based on what happened with the original grand renaming, the marginal and very controversial stuff either gets dropped or we decided to do it anyway. The things that would key in a go/no-go decision would be the general consensus of the people involved and whether the net.elders (definition of which being, for the sake of the argument, Greg and Spaf and maybe me -- keepers of the things and lists of the net -- and other people who have been around and are generally well-thought of on the net. We can argue specifics later...) Anyway, this is really a meta-proposal for meta-discussion rather than anything formal. It just seems like a reasonable idea to me -- which means there has to be a nasty flaw in it somewhere. Something to think about, at least. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (09/27/89)
In article <35044@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >[Chuq suggests that we consider a New Great Renaming.] >The way I think it could work is this: someone in charge takes feedback on >what people think are problems in the name space -- misnamed groups, >misplaced groups, etc. They filter it all out and decide which things really >ought to be dealt with and then put up a consensus proposal, which is then >discussed and refined until everyone generally agrees it's a good thing. >Then we do it. I think this is a great idea. Besides, all the discussion, flames and all that would arise from all this would help us all to do really well on the next 'Bandwidth Wasters Hall of Fame' list! :-) [Some suggested ideas, which I generally like.] >This would the the time to consider new top-level >domains for future expansion, moving things from one domain to another, >deleting domains (hah!), deleting groups and generally optimizing the name >space and taking a longer-term look at the future of USENET. Rather than >arguing each nit-picking detail ad infinitum, we could put it all together, >fix it up and then get it done all at once, reducing the lead time *and* the >amount of noise and nastiness that goes on with all of this. Well, I doubt that a Great Renaming would reduce `noise and nastiness'! I imagine it would bring out the flame-throwers in droves. (I wasn't around for the last renaming, so I don't know how smoothly it was pulled off.) >And no, I don't propose putting it to a general vote, I agree that a vote would probably be the ultimate Excedrin headache. But do you really think we heve any chance at a consensus by discussion? A consensus seems to have been reached about rec.radio.* for the radio monitoring group, but is this the exception? >Anyway, this is really a meta-proposal for meta-discussion rather than >anything formal. It just seems like a reasonable idea to me -- which means >there has to be a nasty flaw in it somewhere. Seems reasonable to me, too. A colossal pain, but reasonable. -- Geoff Allen \ Disclaimer: Any thoughts here are my own, {uunet,bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ not WINCO's, DOE's or anyone else's. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/28/89)
>Well, I doubt that a Great Renaming would reduce `noise and nastiness'! >I imagine it would bring out the flame-throwers in droves. (I wasn't >around for the last renaming, so I don't know how smoothly it was pulled >off.) The last time we did a grand renaming I brought the subject up and was bludgeoned bloody. The project was dropped for a couple of years, then Rick Adams and Spafford resurrected the idea and built a new, improved renaming structure which was polished over a period of a few months -- and then implemented slowly and carefully (and *still* painfully). I know I still have some scars from the first war, and I'll bet Spaf and Rick do, too. It took a long time to convince people and work out the details and it sometimes got, um, interesting. But I don't think there's anyone who knows the old net and the new net who would say the old naming scheme was better. Now, with a precedent behind us and some careful planning and groundwork, we can likely do it a lot less painfully. Hopefully. >>And no, I don't propose putting it to a general vote, >But do you really think we heve any chance at a consensus by discussion? >A consensus seems to have been reached about rec.radio.* for the radio >monitoring group, but is this the exception? I think so. Think of the discussion as a form of line item veto. We implement the things we can reach consensus on and continue to discuss the rest until we either decide it isn't worth it or we come up with something better. >Seems reasonable to me, too. A colossal pain, but reasonable. So far, the private feedback I've been getting has been favorable. I want to listen to comments for a while, but I think that when the c.s.m.hardware vote is over I'll make a call for suggestions on a spring cleaning (yes, I'm willing to oversee it if it comes to that. We can discuss implementation later). -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
jessea@dynasys.UUCP ( Sysadmin.) (09/30/89)
In article <35044@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >We've been trying, on and off, to set up some form of deletion proposal for > >improved -- maybe once a year or every 18 months or whenever people decide >it's needed. Is there no convention or related event which can be used as a USENET improvement forum? A multitude of ideas could be taken up: the problem with changing/deleting newgroups; adding Zmodem to uucp; etc. I don't know if it could be a voting type of deal (I'm not sure we would want that), but it could just be a forum for debate and explanation. Any ideas? -- Jesse W. Asher Dynasys (901) 382-1705 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 uunet!dynasys!jessea