s_dowman@leaf.dec.com (Steve Dowman) (07/28/89)
In regard to the formation of new newsgroups: Why do some newsgroups
go through a formal voting procedure and some do not? An example is
alt.romance. Someone posted that this group would be a good idea and
then the next day it was on Usenet and people were posting to it. I
don't remember seeing a vote taken for this group.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Steve Dowman | Email: s_dowman@leaf.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp. | -or- s_dowman%leaf.dec@decwrl.dec.com
Littleton, MA | -or- ...!decwrl!leaf.dec.com!s_dowman
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/29/89)
> Why do some newsgroups > go through a formal voting procedure and some do not? An example is > alt.romance. The alt.all heirarchy is a special heirarchy. It isn't (strictly speaking) part of USENET, but a parallel network that shares the same distribution system. It was started because some people felt that the newsgroup creation procedures on USENET were too restrictive, so they adopted a (more or less) open "If you want it, create it" environment. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. On USENET, it takes more time and energy to create a newsgroup, but more people will read it. With alt, you can immediately create it, but fewer people will get to see it because alt isn't as widely distributed. The alt heirarchy also occasionally falls prey to minor abuses like alt.weemba or the recent alt.maroney, both newsgroups aimed primarily at making a political comment about a controversial net-user rather than any useful purpose. In general, though, USENET and alt co-exist and complement each other. Alt can be used for niche or temporary discussions or to see if a discussion topic has enough continuing support for a full USENET group. It is also home for groups that many USENET sites would find politically difficult to carry (alt.sex, alt.drugs, etc). Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (07/31/89)
In article <3826@shlump.nac.dec.com> s_dowman@leaf.dec.com (Steve Dowman) writes:
: In regard to the formation of new newsgroups: Why do some newsgroups
: go through a formal voting procedure and some do not? An example is
: alt.romance. Someone posted that this group would be a good idea and
: then the next day it was on Usenet and people were posting to it. I
: don't remember seeing a vote taken for this group.
This has to do with which newsgroup hierarchy the group would be
created in. Certain hierarchies (comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc,
talk) are part of the "regular Usenet" and go through the "formal"
voting procedure. Alt, on the other hand, is explicitly intended to
be an "anything goes" anarchy; you want a group, go ahead and create
it. Of course, there are drawbacks to that, like since anything goes,
someone can just delete the group you just created.... Other groups
are part of different hierarchies and are controlled by whoever
administers those hierarchies (gnu, biz, pubnet, etc.)
Read the messages posted in news.announce.newusers and news.lists for
more information.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.com