roger@felix.UUCP (04/11/84)
Since I left out the period on my original posting to
this newsgroup, and the message ended up in net.never.never.land,
I have received sixteen responses. Twelve for, three against,
and one; well, never mind.
The proposal, for those of you who don't read net.auto, is this
(though I don't know why you would care):
A new newsgroup, to be called net.auto.sport (rather than net.rec.auto,
or even net.sport.auto, which each got one supporter out of the "yes"
votes so far), which will deal with the topics of sport cars, racing,
rallying, etc. The raison d'etre for this group is to provide a more
limited forum for, and to stimulate interest in the above topics. In
addition, it is broader in scope than some other recent proposals,
namely net.auto.bmw, etc. I will help to eliminate the used car ads,
the radiator repair advice letters, and other articles cluttering up
the net for us enthusiasts.
Let me hear what you think, though I can't guarantee I going to care! :-)
>From the driving gloved fingers of .....
Roger (... because it's a Ferrari ...) Webster
ucbvax!trwrb!felix!rogerbbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (04/14/84)
I think that this conception that Newsgroups should (can!) be
formed by voting on them should be corrected. How about posting
your articles to net.auto for a while. If the demand is as great
as you claim, then after a while we (the readership of net.auto)
will be begging you to form a new newsgroup.
Regards,
--
Binayak Banerjee
{allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerjealb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum) (04/15/84)
I agree. Voting doesn't work, because a proposal ALWAYS gets a certain number of yes votes, and newsgroups created this way don't always work. There has got to be a sufficient interest in a group shown before its creation before a group is created. Believe it or not, but when the net was small, this is how it was done, and it worked. When people started voting, it broke down. So carry out your discussions in net.auto for a while, and see if there's enough.