minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (10/23/85)
I was glad that Gene took the trouble of explaining how news groups *should* be created, but would like to point out a flaw in this procedure: it assumes that people interested in creating (or not creating) net.internat (for example) subscribe to net.news, or was it net.news.group, to participate in the discussion. This is probably not the case and I would recommend some other way of justifying a new group. The remainder of this message concerns net.internat. Although its creation violated the conventions of the Usenet anarchy, I feel it serves a useful purpose, and the messages I have received to date bring up interesting and important issues. Gene suggested that it might be reincarnated as a subgroup to net.unix. This isn't a good idea as international issues cut across the entire computer field: language design to accomodate non-Roman alphabets, operating system design, terminal operation, telecommunications, etc. Since I don't subscribe to net.news, please feel free to comment by mail. Martin Minow decvax!minow
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/24/85)
> I was glad that Gene took the trouble of explaining how news > groups *should* be created, but would like to point out > a flaw in this procedure: it assumes that people interested > in creating (or not creating) net.internat (for example) > subscribe to net.news, or was it net.news.group, to participate > in the discussion. This is probably not the case and I would > recommend some other way of justifying a new group. This is a lame excuse. As much as I think net.internat is valuable, I also think that it should have been created properly--and I think that if you want a new newsgroup you can either subscribe to net.news.group for long enough to participate in the discussion about creating it or you can damn well do without it. All this whining about the effort of paying attention and participating in the administrative work of the net just long enough and just little enough to get one group created is not only petty but a big insult to the people (like Spaf) who do the larger part of the administration. I am VERY interested in the material that has shown up in net.internat. If there are enough other people so interested, it should be no problem. We can bring about the standard polling of the readership, discussion, etc., and either re-create the group (by due process this time) or find out that it's of limited interest. But let's get on with the real process of deciding on creating the group (and looking into whether it has to be at the top level, by the way) and STOP WHINING because somebody got caught not playing by the rules! -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/29/85)
Yes, I do have a few thoughts, but first let me tell you enough about me to put them into context. Basically, I'm a hardware type (EE) with latent software tendencies (:-). I've done a little programming of various types, etc. but I'm not very knowledgeable about how the net works. I do know, however, that the bandwidth required for an information bearing newsgroup is no greater than that of a noise bearing group of the same or lower volume. > If we won't allow a net.bizarre to exist because it > was created outside of established procedure, we cannot allow > net.internat to be created either. The purposes and nature of the > groups are different, but the point remains the same. Arguments about > merit of a newsgroup really aren't appropriate here -- if the net is to But shouldn't they be? (I realize the difficulty; see below.) > be judged based on the volume (=popularity?) of newsgroups, then Usenet > is not primarily for technical or theoretical discussions. Rather, the > net is a forum for cranks and flamers with some technical content > thrown in now and again. While I understand the concepts of expediency and practicability, I hope it will be possible to devise a scheme to address the problem of allowing worthwhile but low volume groups to be formed and to exist. I have thought for a while now that there should be some mechanism for handling this problem, but, no, I don't have any idea what it is. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some of the high noise, high volume groups (eg net.women) but I think, in an ideal world, there would be room for groups on interesting topics even if present volume doesn't so indicate. (Yes, I know this isn't an ideal world but it is something to think about.) A case in point is net.analog. For quite a long time after it was formed, the volume was very low but there were a few of us who faithfully followed what there was. Now the group is moderately active and often serves quite a useful purpose. ****** The main thing that I question is that volume *should* be the main or only criterion for formation or existance of a group. ****** I agree that groups should be formed properly, with proper discussion and that it makes sense that this discussion should take place in a newsgroup designated for that purpose. The fact that this doesn't always take place is, I believe, an educational problem. I have always assumed that only a (relatively) few persons have the priveledge of creating a newsgroup. Is this true? Are they an identifiable subset of the user community? Is there anyway that this subset can be automatically reminded of correct procedure periodically? I know that I have trouble remembering things that I don't use often and I assume that those able to form newsgroups are not widely different, in that respect, from those of us who are not. The problem with net.announce.newusers is that most of us unsubscribe once we have read it (and then forget what it is called; I just had to look it up :-(). Perhaps actual newsgroup *formation* should be "moderated" analogously to submission to a moderated newsgroup. Perhaps this could be done through the backbone sites (but not necessarily *totally* under their control). Yes, I do realize that this is placing a further burden on those who have been kind enough to act as backbone sites. > Perhaps it is time we explored defining a new set of rules for creating YES! > and retaining newsgroups. Volume of postings is not the best criterion Correct! > for measuring the utility of a group, but it certainly is the easiest > to measure. Also true. > We probably need to come up with a new procedure for > deciding whether to create a new group, and when to delete an old one. > If you have any thoughts on these topics, post them as a followup to > this article, only post them to "net.news". I seem to recall that somewhere, probably in the part that I edited out to make this more manageable in length, a comment was made to the effect that it is time to create a new newsgroup when the volume on a certain subtopic posted to an existing group exceeds a certain threshold. This is fine as *one* indicator that a new newsgroup should exist. But what if there is *NO* existing newsgroup to which posting is appropriate? What if there is a very interesting, *technical* topic which some users would like to see explored on the net but it doesn't fit any existing group at all? Should one be rude enough to post to a randomly selected group? Is there no one who can come up with a mechanism to address this problem? What about creation of a temporary group with a mechanism to expire in n months where n is a reasonably small number. Then, if volume warrants, before expiration the group can be made permanent, otherwise it dies a natural death. Sorry this got so long. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa