gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/29/85)
In article <1828@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > The way I interpret the newsgroup > creation rules is that you must first have a DEMONSTRATED VOLUME of postings > before proposing new groups. Maybe that should be changed, I don't know. Uh, where is the Demonstrated Volume of postings in mod.computers.gould? I haven't seen Gould Wizards begging for a new newsgroup and flooding net.micro.cbm with inappropriate postings because they haven't been given their own group. Yet somehow Spaf thought it met his "new newsgroup" criteria, while at the same time thinking that net.internat did not. Is this just a bit of "mod chauvanism" creeping in? It's OK to create a new *moderated* group but not a new *unmoderated* group? Or is it just plain inconsistent with the rules that Greg and Spaf are spouting? Personally I think Demonstrated Volume is a bad way to pick, since the most interesting newsgroups for me are those where I don't have to wade thru 50 messages a day. But before we debate whether D.V. is a good criterion, I think we should acknowledge that it is *not* an inviolate part of the current rules for newsgroup creation -- according to both recent and distant history.
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (11/05/85)
In article <232@l5.uucp> gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >In article <1828@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >> The way I interpret the newsgroup >> creation rules is that you must first have a DEMONSTRATED VOLUME of postings >> before proposing new groups. Maybe that should be changed, I don't know. > >Uh, where is the Demonstrated Volume of postings in mod.computers.gould? >I haven't seen Gould Wizards begging for a new newsgroup and flooding >net.micro.cbm with inappropriate postings because they haven't been >given their own group. Yet somehow Spaf thought it met his "new >newsgroup" criteria, while at the same time thinking that net.internat >did not. I can make mistakes ya know. I created mod.computers.gould because I misread the list that Erik Fair sent to me. He is the one setting up the gateways, and I was creating groups that I thought he was gatewaying based on current gateways. It turns out I created about 4 groups that were not currently being gatewayed into "net" groups -- they will be deleted. Pick another target for abuse, please. -- Gene "wedding done, thesis to go" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf