Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: nuke net.general?
Message-ID: <2043@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 01:32:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2043
Posted: Thu Jun 21 01:32:22 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 07:36:45 EDT
References: <32@cbosgd.UUCP> <246@west44.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 21

> However, don't nuke net.followup - what is needed here is for people to be
> encouraged to move discussions from the group that they started in to
> net.followup. Remember the software piracy debate? That is just the sort of
> thing that net.followup is suitable for (and I wish that someone would move
> the BBS debate there too!).

The trouble is that net.followup is a "generic" followup group.  What criterion
should be applied for moving a discussion out of a specific group to a generic
group?  If the BBS debate doesn't fit into the confines of a specific group,
it should perhaps be moved to net.misc, but not net.followup.  If net.general
goes, the *reason d'etre* of net.followup goes with it.

The real answer to a lot of the problems cited with news is the inability
to group articles into discussions and to unsubscribe from a discussion;
I would have unsubscribed from the BBS debate long ago if I had that capability.
2.11 will provide such grouping, and perhaps the ability to unsubscribe.
I think the newsgroup mechanism is being strained far past its ability to
sort discussions, and some discussion grouping facility is needed.

	Guy Harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy