reid@Glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) (11/19/85)
One month ago I proposed in net.cooks that a new newsgroup be created to
support a mechanized "net cookbook". It received enthusiastic support there.
20 days ago I proposed in net.news.group that "mod.recipes" be created to
serve this purpose. As of today, I have received the following responses:
* Public postings: 13 in favor, 2 against. It is worth noting that both
of the posted "against" responses based their vote on conditions
that are demonstrably false.
* Private mail to me: 34 in favor, 2 against.
I claim that we have now satisfied the formal requirements for the creation
of a new moderated newsgroup; I hereby formally request that it be created
with me as the moderator. I would like to begin traffic on mod.recipes on
December 1.
--
Brian Reid decwrl!glacier!reid
Stanford reid@SU-Glacier.ARPAcraig@dcl-cs.UUCP (Craig Wylie) (11/25/85)
In article <1384@Glacier.ARPA> reid@Glacier.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: > >One month ago I proposed in net.cooks that a new newsgroup be created to >support a mechanized "net cookbook". It received enthusiastic support there. >20 days ago I proposed in net.news.group that "mod.recipes" be created to >serve this purpose. As of today, I have received the following responses: > * Public postings: 13 in favor, 2 against. It is worth noting that both > of the posted "against" responses based their vote on conditions > that are demonstrably false. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ I feel that this is a bit strong -- the reason I posted against this is that I never see net.cooks (or more to the point that there is never anything in it). The reason for this is that it does not seem to be carried by the siesmo-mcvax link. Therefore in my domain what I said was not false. I recieved of the order of 7 mail messages, 3 mildly abusive, 3 highly sarcastic and 1 polite . The vote was 6 to 1 in favour of net/mod.recipies -- all came from the states, so Ok in the states it would see to be a reasonable idea. We don't get net.cooks, I don't see any reason why we should recieve mod.recipies. If it is created, and I believe it has been, then keep it to the US or wherever else carries net.cooks (I can not comment on Australia). It makes me wonder if it is necessary for the European side of things to maintain empty news groups or moderated groups -- could somebody tell me if it is necessary? Craig. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!craig| Post: University of Lancaster, DARPA: craig%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Department of Computing, JANET: craig@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4146 | LA1 4YR Project: Cosmos Distributed Operating Systems Research
ncx@cheviot.uucp (Lindsay F. Marshall) (11/26/85)
In article <811@dcl-cs.UUCP> craig@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Craig Wylie) writes: >....... We don't get net.cooks, >I don't see any reason why we should recieve mod.recipies. If it is created, >and I believe it has been, then keep it to the US or >wherever else carries net.cooks (I can not comment on Australia). > I would love to get net.cooks (and net.veg and net......) and I would also love to get mod.recipes. I dont suppose that they will get over here though. *SIGH* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindsay F. Marshall, Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK ARPA : lindsay%cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa JANET : lindsay@uk.ac.newcastle.cheviot UUCP : <UK>!ukc!cheviot!lindsay -------------------------------------------------------------------------------