randall@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Randall Atkinson) (08/25/89)
In article <19433@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: ( other stuff was deleted here) >In all this I obviously respect the right of system administrators to reject >any group, but if the group does in fact pass, then it should at least be >created. Greg Woods has no obligation to anyone to issue any newgroup just as no system is obliged to carry any group. What is silly is that Dennis Kriz was told before the vote that people wouldn't object to creating TALK.rights.human but objected strenuously to creating SOC.rights.human and that now he is surprised that many sites (apparently including some former "backbone" sites) aren't carrying the group. Please note that I have nothing to do with administration here on uvaarpa or at The Univeristy of Virginia for that matter. I speak for myself.
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/25/89)
In article <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >In article <19433@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >( other stuff was deleted here) >>In all this I obviously respect the right of system administrators to reject >>any group, but if the group does in fact pass, then it should at least be >>created. > >Greg Woods has no obligation to anyone to issue any newgroup just >as no system is obliged to carry any group. Greg Woods IS obligated to create the group if it says that to create the group one can send a message to that effect to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" If this is not the case, then strike that line from the guide that is posted on how to create a newsgroup. [And after this experience I strongly recommend that]. > >What is silly is that Dennis Kriz was told before the vote that >people wouldn't object to creating TALK.rights.human but objected >strenuously to creating SOC.rights.human and that now he is >surprised that many sites (apparently including some former "backbone" >sites) aren't carrying the group. > What is silly is that this objection was only voiced *after* I put the group up for a vote. I got some 50 letters during the discussion portion of the procedure for newsgroup creation. Only 2 mentioned that the group should be a "talk" group instead of a "soc" group. No one posted ANYTHING on news.groups concerning the group during the discussion at all ... 'cept me... ASKING PEOPLE TO POST THEIR SUGGESTIONS. Only when I put the group up for a vote, were there objections made. The vote did carry ... and by a large margin. Why "soc" and not "talk" ... The inspiration for SRH was SCC (soc.culture.china). There are a lot of people in the same predicament as the Chinese, and it seemed like a logical extention, one that could clearly be made by those who subscribe to SCC now. SCC also is carried world-wide, whereas "talk" groups tend to stay state-side. Do you know I got votes from as far as NEW ZEALAND, and SEVERAL from FINLAND for this group? This not to mention more from the UK. The honest thing would be to respect the choice made. I understand that this will take time. But I hope that it will ultimately take place. dennis
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (08/26/89)
To clear this all up... Having "talked" to Greg Woods via e-mial... probably the best thing to get out of this whole thing is that Greg and Spaf are not the only ones who send legitimate newgroup creation messages. As the guidelines indicated, the vote-taker and/or the news administrator on the vote-taker's machine can also send such messages. The way to check whether or not the group is legitimate is to check the voting results that have to be posted at least 5 days beofre the newgroup command is set. If there was a vote, the group passed, and there was no objection to the results posted, then ... the newgroup command sent to create it is legitimate... whether or not Greg Woods or Spaf sent the message. Check the appropriate section of the new-newsgroup formation guide. Take care... dennis