mats@fortune.UUCP (Mats Wichmann) (02/12/86)
Two topics:
1. Selfishly, I maintain I don't care if a newsgroup I don't read
is renamed or not. However, the volume of crap relating to this
topic is excessive - I just plowed through net.news.group
after not looking at it for a while; 86 messages, of which all
but 10 were followups ad infinitum to the net.blownup wars.
Most of the others were followups to "is net.sources beyond hope".
I appreciate that the shuttle disaster stirred a lot of sentiment,
but can somebody please come up with a way to avoid posting
48 zillion short messages saying basically either "yes", "no",
or "so and so said such and such supporting [yes,no] and he
is full of it". What are required are so-called "escalation
procedures", even though I am in general against regulating
the net submissions. Try something like this:
I joe@slugs decides that it would be nice if net.toenail were
renamed net.toejam. He mails a letter to spaf (who I am
sure would serve as a willing victim for this), indicating
the proposed change.
II spaf posts a note reporting the suggestion, calling for a
MODERATED discussion, if discussion seems warranted
III After some amount of discussion, a call to vote (by mail)
is made
IV Voting is tabulated and the results reported.
Oh, forget it, it would never work.
[ This got too long; second topic in next letter ]
Mats Wichmann
Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,hplabs,dual}!fortune!mats