mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (10/28/85)
In article <1820@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: >... the CONTENT of net.internat is NOT what >is objected to, it is the method of creation. It sets a very bad precedent, >REGARDLESS of how valuable the information in the group is (and I do NOT >dispute that). The problem is that someone created a netwide group with no >discussion among the net and no demonstrated need. If one wants to start >a new topic of discussion, fine; start it in an existing group. If the >topic proves to generate enough traffic to warrant it, THEN suggest >forming a new newsgroup. It is not necessary to start a new newsgroup >every time a new topic comes up for discussion. 1. Agreed: the method of creation was irregular, and Spaf was probably justitfied (maybe a little overzealous, though) in removing net.internat. 2. Agreed: there should be some discussion about the creation. 3. Wishy-washy: a "need" should be established. Need is at best an elusive criterion, and as I said in an earlier note, one which can backfire (it might be easier to demonstrate "need" for net.bizarre than net.internat, a depressing thought indeed). 4. Opposed: start the discussion in an existing group and if traffic warrants it, form a new newsgroup. How, pray tell, will persons interested in international issues home-in on an interim group to use? Try net.general and you get your head bitten off (nothing is of general interest any more). Try net.misc and it's impossible to find the thread of the converstations you're interested in (sort of like a bad radio tuner). Try something apparently related (net.unix? net.unix-wizards? net.nlang?) and the results will be depressingly similar to net.general. As I see it, we're trying to use the newsgroup creation rules to reduce traffic volume and to eliminate trash (both laudable goals). However, this is the *wrong* tool, as the anomalies above demonstrate, and only serves to stifle the creation of new *appropriate* groups. My feeling is that a newsgroup is justified if a) it addresses a well-defined, coherent, and cohesive set of topics, and b) there is sufficient interest by *both* potential contributors and potential readers in these topics. The second criterion serves to dampen `newgroup mania,' and conserve limited newsgroup bandwidth. We'll have to address the raw volume and noise problems some other way (sorry, I haven't any brilliant ideas here). -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA