dman@homxa.UUCP (#D.ANDERSON) (05/07/84)
I have waited until net.music.classical was 100 articles old before I posted any messages pertaining to its creation. The call for `net.music.classical' has gone out many times before - each time a round of "yeahs" appears, followed by a several "but this topic has had no discussion", and then a denial for creation. I am the malicious proponent that Rich Rosen spoke of; it was I who took a unilateral action and created the group, although others have sent mail to me saying that they would have if I hadn't. I don't consider myself "bad" for the net, but this is a question that is at best very subjective anyway. I saw money being spent to transmit the same back- and-forth every time the classical music subject came up. If action was taken and the group failed, that would be the end of it. If the group succeeded then we'd have a another healthy active newsgroup. It appears that the chance paid off. There are many administrators on the net. Any one of them has the power to give a newsgroup existence. However, the life of a group can come only from its readers. The direction 2.11 may take is a step more towards Notes, where "discussions" arise - apparently subgroups are too limiting or intimidating. In any case the group/subgroup scheme is inflexible enough to cause messages like "yes, it should be created / no, it should not be created" to circulate. We all should have the right to discourse on any subject under a given framework, free from any objection of its right to exist. 2.10 is good, but it is a bulletin board; what we really want is a bathroom stall to write on. Keep it clean - Dave Anderson 201-949-5552
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (05/10/84)
I think the only real reason we don't create new groups as quickly as we
could is because once they exist it is practically impossible to get rid
of them again. If we had some way of putting a new topic on the system
and evaluating it AND deleting it if it didn't make the grade (whatever
the grade is defined to be) then I'd be a lot more willing to create
new topics. As I've found out the hard way, no matter how useless or
empty a group is, once it is created it is set in stone, and it is
there forever (or almost). My belief is that the vast number of topics
we already have is confusing to new users (and many not-so-new users) and
I don't want to increase the complexity of the net beyond what it is already.
My personal preference would be that for every new topic that is created
we delete an old one until the consensus of the net is that there aren't
any topics worthy of deletion. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority
on this, so I am not pushing it. The amount of time, effort, and emotional
stability (to survive flamings) needed to get a topic zapped around here
simply isn't worth it to me, so the only alternative is to be very careful
what is created.
chuq (don't Nuke Wobegon! See if I care!)
--
>From the closet of anxieties of: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd70,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui (408) 733-2600 x242
Half asleep I hear a voice; is it only in my mind?
Or is it someone calling me, someone I failed and left behind?