webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP (09/08/87)
In article <4314@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > .... Naturally there is no need for a moderated sf group (or to be more precise, yet another moderated sf group -- recall we already have otherrealms and the digest version of sf-lovers). However, it is not clear to me that it does (or should) matter whether or not there is a ``need'' for such a group in order for it to be created in the alt.* groups. Can any one shead any light on the question of what constitutes ``valid creation of an alt.* group?'' ----- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
gam@amdahl.UUCP (09/08/87)
In article <349@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: >However, it is not clear to me that it does (or should) matter whether >or not there is a ``need'' for such a group in order for it to be >created in the alt.* groups. > >Can any one shead any light on the question of what constitutes >``valid creation of an alt.* group?'' Oh, let us not back ourselves into the corner that the other network did about how to creat newsgroups. I think it should remain simple: a new newsgroup is created by Good Judgement as to what is needed. I analogize creating newsgroups to creating directories: if they get used, great, if they don't they don't take up much space anyway. What's wrong with that? Most importantly, the alt.* newsgroups have no controlling "backbone" and never should have such a thing. The backbone of the other network has become corrupt by seeking to control how the network is run. Let that not happen here. -- Gordon A. Moffett gam@amdahl.amdahl.com ~ dit-dit-dit daaaaaaaah ~ ~ dit-dit-dit daaaaaaaah .... ~
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/09/87)
> Naturally there is no need for a moderated sf group (or to be more > precise, yet another moderated sf group -- recall we already have > otherrealms and the digest version of sf-lovers). Unfortunately, neither is quite what is being asked for. Otherrealms is a magazine, whose editor presumably (I don't usually read it) defines its purpose and topics rather more narrowly than a conventional moderated group. As for the sf-l digest, digestification is precisely what most Usenet people *don't* want, because we have better solutions to the problems that digests were invented to solve. And most of Usenet doesn't have the digestified sf-lovers, by the way, last I looked. What is wanted is moderation, without major restriction of topic and without unnecessarily mulching individual contributions together into a digest. What isn't clear to me is why the issue belongs in alt. Apart from the screams that will result from certain factions of the community, moderating the existing sf-lovers group sounds like a fine idea to me. Then maybe I could start reading it again. Note that I am *not* volunteering to moderate it! Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry -- "There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry