nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (07/23/85)
It has been decided to abolish net.general. This group will be replaced with a moderated group, mod.general, for announcements of general interest to the net. Discussions which seem to have no appropriate newsgroup, but are not of general interest (the recent coke discussion comes to mind) should be directed to net.misc. I will be moderating the newsgroup. My uucp address is ihnp4!abnji!nyssa. net.general's removal will follow within a couple weeks from when you read this. Articles submitted will either be approved, returned with a reason given for rejection, or returned with a suggestion for a more appropriate newsgroup. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa "Congratulations, Sir, You survived the vote!" (What story was that? Who said it?)
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (07/25/85)
From: ihnp4!abnji!nyssa@ut-sally (nyssa of traken)
>It has been decided to abolish net.general.
Really? By whom? While I don't object to a mod.general (or the removal
of net.general), I do wonder where this discussion took place. It wasn't
net.news.group. And who is nyssa?
By the way, what is the difference between mod.general, which is "for
announcements of general interest" and mod.announce?
-Dragon
--
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crgjgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (07/26/85)
[Just who was that masked line-eater, anyway?] > It has been decided to abolish net.general. This group will be > replaced with a moderated group, mod.general, for announcements > of general interest to the net. > -- > James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa A few questions, if you please. 1) WHO decided to abolish net.general? 2) WHERE was the discussion of this action? Being fairly new to the net, I may have missed something. However, I get the distinct impression that there is an informal (at least) protocol for making changes (additions/ deletions) to the list of active newsgroups. (Didn't someone just get "stomped on" for creating net.bizarre without *proper* discussion?) 3) WHY is this group to be abolished? WHAT purpose will it serve? WHAT benefit will the net gain from the demise of net.general? (I doubt that volume is the main concern, since in the 3 weeks our site has been on the net we have only received 45 messages. This is hardly an avalanche.) 4) WHAT benefits do the rest of the "netters" gain by the creation of mod.general? 5) WHO is "nyssa". Is it *really* James C Armstrong, Jnr.? If so, what is Mr. Armstrong's site? WHO is he to *dictate* (?) to the net? Or, is there some nuance of net.etiquette that I am not aware of? This message cross-posted to net.general (the object of discussion), and net.news.group (which, as I understand it, is the place for discussions of this kind.) No flames please. Instruction in proper etiquette *is* welcome. -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd) The above statements are only my personal opinion, which I will flatly deny if questioned.
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (07/30/85)
Okay. Let me try to either add some information, or fan some flames.
The posting by James Armstrong, Jr. about the creation of mod.general
has taken a number of people by surprise. It certainly took me by
surprise. I have received lots of letters and seen many articles
posted asking all the same questions, basically:
1) Who decided to remove net.general? I think that was an assumption
made by Mr. Armstrong, and an erroneous conclusion (more on that
later). James is currently serving as a moderator for two of the
"mod" groups, and he has been an active contributor to the net for some
time. Beyond that, I don't know.
2) Why was it decided to remove net.general? There has been a great
deal of talk over the past few years about removing net.general because
of all the bozos misusing the group. The general conclusion seems to
have always been that we need some moderated group to serve the purpose
of net.general, but we shouldn't dispose of net.general since some
software depends on it. Furthermore, many vociferous net types claim
that we need an outlet in case moderators overstep their bounds, and an
unmoderated net.general is the way. Perhaps this proves their point.
3) When was it decided to create mod.general and who decided that? I
believe the decision was made about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I got mail (from
just whom, I forget) addressed to "moderators" saying that mod.general
and mod.newprod were going to be created. I didn't really see any
discussion, either. It should have been mentioned in net.news.group
for public comment, but wasn't. There may have been some discussion in
the mail amongst some of the moderators, but if so, I missed it while
trying to get some work done on my thesis. I doubt the need for
mod.general considering the existence of net.announce and net.misc, and
I also question the existence of mod.newprod, but that's just my
personal viewpoint. Usually, the current moderators discuss creating
moderated newsgroups and then create them. If they don't get used,
they get deleted. If they do get used, the corresponding "net" groups
do not get deleted. No one seems to have objected to this before, as
befits the status of "mod" groups as experimental.
4) Is net.general going to be deleted? Gawd, I hope not! I don't see
what harm it is to leave it there. If it withers away and dies, fine,
then we can delete it. If not, at least it serves a useful purpose as
we watch all the bozos post "for sale in NJ" articles to an
international distribution. I enjoy sending mail to those people (why
do so many of them work for AT&T, by the way?). If everybody sent
mail to each person who posts something innappropriate to net.general,
maybe we'd raise the general awareness of net users. Naaaahhhhh....
5) What do we do next? I dunno. One thing you can do -- *DON'T WRITE
TO ME!* No more letters! I didn't do it! If you are interested in
getting the story, write to Mr. Armstrong and ask him to post something
to the net explaining the situation. I'm sure he's a reasonable and
intelligent human being operating under a mistaken impression. DON'T
abuse him unnecessarily -- I'm sure he's already received enough of
that. Just politely tell him that you don't want net.general to go
away. You might also register your opinions on the creation of
"mod.general". Then politely ask him to post something to both
net.followup and net.news.group explaining what happened.
In conclusion: I am assuming a mistake has been made, probably
in good faith, but nonetheless a mistake. I will not issue
any "rmgroup" messages for net.general, nor will I honor any such
request. I will not remove net.general from the list of active
newsgroups until it appears that the proper procedures have been
followed and the vast majority of responsible netters want that
to happen.
--
Gene "4 months and counting" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafkeithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) (07/31/85)
In article <698@gatech.CSNET> spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) writes: >... >4) Is net.general going to be deleted? Gawd, I hope not! I don't see >what harm it is to leave it there. If it withers away and dies, fine, >then we can delete it. If not, at least it serves a useful purpose as >we watch all the bozos post "for sale in NJ" articles to an >international distribution. I enjoy sending mail to those people >(why do so many of them work for AT&T, by the way?). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Guess whose phone lines carry most of this news from site to site (to site to site to site..). -- Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 uucp: [ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|(and_many_others)]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe CSnet: keithe@tek ARPAnet: keithe.tek@rand-relay