davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP (Greg Davidson) (10/20/85)
(If you read net.internat and are not in Europe, please send me a note; I'll do a census and inform the net - so PLEASE, EVERYBODY, RESPOND!) I was shocked to read in net.internat that it was to be closed to US readership without a discussion in the group because (1) most of the submitted articles originate in Europe and (2) it's creation did not follow the proper creation rules. I think that this is an important group, and should by its subject matter receive a worldwide distribution. First, net.internat is not just an European group, as the recent vigorous discussion of how to accommodate Chinese characters exhibits. I have also noticed many postings by US authors (though its the readers' locations that count), so they should not be ignored, even if outnumbered. I have been reading it, and I'm sure many other people outside of Europe have been also. As for the business of closing groups that are not properly formed, net.internat followed a mandate from the last EUUG conference in Copenhagen. Need I remind US readers that the EUUG is the sister organization to Usenix in the States? This is hardly a thoughtless, irresponsible basis from which to create a newsgroup. If we could afford the time to debate newsgroup creations at UNIX conferences, it would be very nice - preferable to using net.news.group. The creator of net.internat was not familiar with the protocol for approving newsgroups with US distribution, but this is understandable since he is not from the States. I'm sure the smaller European USENET community have their own protocol for these things, or will soon - it would behoove us to be more tolerant of this kind of error. Please allow net.internat to continue while we have a chance to ask how many people are reading it. If the name is objectionable, that can be easily remedied. _Greg Davidson decvax!sdcsvax!davidson ucbvax!sdcsvax!davidson davidson@ucsd.arpa P.S. If you read net.internat & are not in Europe, don't forget to send me a note!
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/21/85)
> I was shocked to read in net.internat that it was to be closed to US > readership without a discussion in the group because (1) most of the > submitted articles originate in Europe and (2) it's creation did not > follow the proper creation rules. I think that this is an important > group, and should by its subject matter receive a worldwide distribution. I agree. If the U.S. is excluded, it will be like a preacher whose Sunday morning sermons are on the importance of church attendance; those who most need to hear the message aren't there to hear it! I have worked for two different U.S. companies which supposedly produce international products; both companies essentially developed two distinct product lines, one for the domestic (i.e., U.S.) market, and one for the international (mostly European) market. This happened because most American developers make Anglo-centric (if that's not a word, I just coined it) assumptions, without even realizing it. Gary Samuelson ittatc!bunker!garys
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/24/85)
> I was shocked to read in net.internat that it was to be closed to US > readership without a discussion in the group because (1) most of the > submitted articles originate in Europe and (2) it's creation did not > follow the proper creation rules. As far as *I* have heard, the only reason it is being removed is 2). No one said ANYTHING about where articles originate or what they contain. > I have been reading it, and I'm sure many other people > outside of Europe have been also. That does not change the fact that the proper procedure for newsgroup creation was not followed. If we allow this group to go on WITHOUT going through the proper procedure, then we will subject ourselves to endless future debates on the worthiness of improperly-created groups, which is what the rules were devised to PREVENT in the first place. Worthiness of the topic is not mentioned ANYWHERE; the sole criteria for justifying a group is DEMONSTRATED NEED based on volume of postings in related groups. > As for the business of closing groups that are not properly formed, > net.internat followed a mandate from the last EUUG conference in Copenhagen. > Need I remind US readers that the EUUG is the sister > organization to Usenix in the States? Big deal. USENIX meetings do not mandate the creation of new groups either. > This is hardly a thoughtless, > irresponsible basis from which to create a newsgroup. If we could > afford the time to debate newsgroup creations at UNIX conferences, > it would be very nice - preferable to using net.news.group. I completely disagree. Not all of us get to attend UNIX conferences. > The creator of net.internat was not familiar with the protocol for > approving newsgroups with US distribution, but this is understandable > since he is not from the States. That makes no difference. The group STILL was not created through the proper procedure. > I'm sure the smaller European USENET > community have their own protocol for these things, or will soon - it > would behoove us to be more tolerant of this kind of error. No, it wouldn't, or the next thing you know, everyone will be creating groups for their own pet topics. This is what the rules were designed to PREVENT. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (10/26/85)
In article <1818@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > >... Worthiness of the topic >is not mentioned ANYWHERE; the sole criteria for justifying a group is >DEMONSTRATED NEED based on volume of postings in related groups. Not to pick on Greg, because this sentiment seems to be that of Spaf and some other admins, but this rule can be used to show that net.bizarre should be a newsgroup and net.internat should not. I'm certain all the 'bizarrenix' can rapidly deluge other groups and vote thousands of times in net.news for their pet group. Since worthiness is not a criterion, they should be allowed to recreate net.bizarre because they've demonstrated a need and we all know they can generate the volume. It's 99 and 44/100% trash, though, and I don't want to have to carry it. Net.internat, on the other hand, has a much smaller community of writers and readers. I know, I know, there was a lot of repitition in the first few postings, but at least some *worthy* issues were addressed, and the signal to noise ratio is *much* higher than net.bizarre. I don't see how these folks could ever justify a newsgroup based on volume, but they obviously have a unifying theme, and I think the worthiness and general high content justify the group. By the way, newsgroup creation wasn't always so rigidly constrained. I know; I was in on the creation of both net.bicycle and net.garden, two newsgroups that will never hit the top 25 (thank God) but which are nicely meeting the needs of well-defined and widely dispersed groups of users. Were I to propose rules, I'd want to see more emphasis put on the theme of the group (so you could tell what it's about), with some reasonable show of netwide interest. This, of course, does not address the *real* problem of the volume of trash, with bad articles driving out good in variant of Gresham's Law. But then the current rules do not adequately address this problem either. In fact, I believe that "trash compaction" is the real reason behind the removal of net.bizarre (a move I support), but it had to be justified in terms of our rules, and net.internat was an innocent victim of the purge. So let's concentrate on mechanisms to eliminate trash and less on developing newsgroup creation rules with constraints that would test the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA