[net.news.group] proposal to solve net.internat crisis

rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (10/26/85)

OK, I haven't been following the net.internat stuff very closely cause
I've been so @#%@#$%@ busy, but here's what I see:

a) net.internat wasn't created via current USENET anarchical procedures
   (try to figure that one out), so it was removed -- probably at least
   partially so net.bizarre readers wouldn't feel more persecuted than
   anyone else.  This much I understand and agree with -- it sure woke
   a lot of people up to the deterioration [spelled w-i-l-d g-r-o-w-t-h]
   of the USENET.

b) A lot of people here in North America are interested in net.internat
   and seem to have sound reasons for it -- a lot of them directly business-
   related.

c) The consensus, however, also seems to be that due to massive traffic it
   should be a moderated group.

d) COP OUT STARTS HERE:  I don't have the time, interest, or knowledge to
   moderate this group, but I imagine if someone will volunteer to moderate
   it and take a readership poll VIA MAIL that mod.internat can get off the
   ground 'legally'.

e) COP OUT ENDS [PARTIALLY] HERE:  Since I'm suggesting this, why don't I
   go ahead and take the poll myself until a brave soul agrees to moderate
   this possible new group.  I have many addresses below; and for those on
   the West Coast we talk to idi -- for those Canajuns reading I believe
   that watmath and clyde talk (not positive).

Happy voting!
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj

ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/27/85)

> 
> c) The consensus, however, also seems to be that due to massive traffic it
>    should be a moderated group.
> 
I have seen no such consensus.  Perhaps reading all the messages that
have subject lines of net.internat is in order.