liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/11/84)
On major restructuring: I guess I feel like such things may well be necessary from time to time to keep things in order. And, the more and more users we have makes it more and more necessary that the groups be well organized and structured. The volume is already so high that many of us already don't subscribe to newsgroups we would like to subscribe to. There are things we can do to make such transitions easier: 1. Once a decision is made that some restructuring is to be done set a date for it to be done. The date should be at least two weeks in the future and perhaps even a month if it is of sufficient magnitude. 2. Post shell scripts and such for staffers to run at the time of the resturcturing that would do as much as possible automatically. Another thing which might help us organizationally is to have one person to coordinate each newsgroup or encompassing group (such as net.sci would be and net.sports is). This idea struck me when I was reading the LIST-OF-LISTS forwarded from the ARPANET. On the ARPANET, there is a coordinator for each mail group who notices, say, if a group needs to be digested or if the volume is dropped back so much that it isn't worth keeping any more. They might also encourage the spawning of another group if an off-the-point discussion is generated. They seem to be the person who was interested in having the group in the first place and is the person who is motivated enough to keep it going. On USENET, it would have to be a bit different, but it could still be quite useful to have newsgroup coordinators. If no one is sufficiently interested in a group to coordinate it, then there probably isn't sufficient need for the group! In our list of lists from Adam, alice!alb, the coordinator for each group would be published. If someone didn't like something about a newsgroup or had a suggestion, mail would first go to the coordinator. The coordinator would also be the main person to flame at misplaced postings and would post articles from time to time about the state or purpose of the group as it became necessary or as it changed. Since a lot of the needs for new newsgroups come from existing newsgroups, the coordinator of the existing group could coordinate a lot of this since it would probably be within his interests as well. The coordinator could also field questions about what kinds of articles are appropriate for his newsgroup from new users and would probably have enough experience to answer a question about which newsgroup an article should be posted. In some newsgroups, the coordinator would have to do little to nothing (eg net.kids or net.pets), but it would still be useful to have someone since change could occur anywhere. And for a lot of newsgroups, it could be a big help! Well, you get the idea. It's probably a better approach than making Mark Horton "King of the net" since I doubt that he really has time to coordinate all of this, anyway. We could use net.news.group for making decisions that need a more public forum and for proposing new groups that are unrelated to any existant groups. It could also be used by current coordinators for announcing changes in his newsgroup and the creation of new subgroups. Enough for now. Comments? -Liz Allen -- Univ of Maryland, College Park MD Usenet: ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz Arpanet: liz@maryland
alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (06/12/84)
Moderators for each group is a no-no. It ruins the whole purpose of USENET as a bulletin board. If you want moderators, go to the ARPAnet. We can have moderated groups, like net.announce and mod.ber, but only by special name. The software cannot currently support other moderated groups. As for renaming, people seem to be deaf to the proven problems. Renaming creates confusion; period. When the First Great Apocalypse occurred, there was over two months lead time for people to get ready. Didn't seem to help a bit. No matter how much time you give, you're in for it. The way to do this, as I said before, is to put in the hooks for organization (e.g. create net.sci and/or net.cs) and when new groups are created, put them under the hooks. The net will slowly and smoothly become organized over the years (yes, years, don't groan; it didn't become chaos overnight, and it's not going to be fixed overnight) as the new groups are put in their place and the old ones die out. Adam
fred@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/12/84)
From: alb@alice.UUCP Moderators for each group is a no-no. It ruins the whole purpose of USENET as a bulletin board. . . . We can have moderated groups, like net.announce and mod.ber, but only by special name. The software cannot currently support other moderated groups. Liz didn't propose a moderator for each group, but a ``coordinator'' for individual groups, or families of newsgroups. This wouldn't require different software, just a shift in policy which would distribute some of the responsibility for administering the net. Individuals would still be free to post what they want to such newsgroups. The coordinator wouldn't review each article, but would act as spokesperson for the group both within the group and in representing the group to the rest of the net, when new subgroups or mergers are being discussed. The coordinator wouldn't even have to be an active participant in the newsgroup. (Liz: forgive me if I'm reading something wrong into your proposal.) - Fred