[net.news.group] It has been brought to my attention...

chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) (10/30/84)

Two items have come up recently in discussions between the various news
hackers around here:

1) It was agreed upon that net.general and net.followup would be nuked at
the last usenix conference. This was discussed on the net and generally
agreed upon (with a few LOUD dissensions). It never happened. Why?
Shouldn't we get it out of the way before the NEXT usenix so the LOUD
dissenters can yell at us about something new?

2) There is currently no mod.wobegon. I'm willing to volunteer to moderate
this critical group on the network. I'm suprised we've lasted this long
without the amazing volume of that group overwhelming our modems.

Your humble servant,
	^	chuq
 	|
	|
    *snicker*
-- 
From the Department of Bistromatics:                   Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui  nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

  I'd know those eyes from a million years away....

furuta@uw-june (Richard Furuta) (10/30/84)

My recollection based on the mail messages sent around last summer was that
rather than get rid of net.general at that point, what was going to happen
was that a complete reorganization of netnews was going to be suggested,
posted, and decided upon.  At whatever time this reorganization happened,
net.general was going to become obsolete and at that time its removal
wouldn't make any difference.

I think the argument that I remember was that removal of net.general was
going to be a somewhat cataclysmic event that would cause confusion and
probably hard feelings.  As long as there was going to be confusion and hard
feelings, one might as well just redo the whole thing.

The newly created set of mod groups surprised me since they didn't seem to
fit within this master plan.  However, I'm not arguing that they shouldn't
have been created or that the need for them does not exist.  Within the
context of current netnews they seem quite appropriate.

Given the current situation, I continue to argue that it is inappropriate to
get rid of net.general.  Removal of net.general would be addressing a
symptom, not the basic problem.

					--Rick

davecl@mako.UUCP (Dave Clemans) (11/03/84)

Another idea is to get rid of net.followup, move the traffic in
net.misc to net.general (thus making net.general the "miscellaneous"
newsgroup) and get rid of net.misc.  This would make net.general
correspond better to the purposes of the *.general local newsgroups
that I know about.

dgc