Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news
Subject: Re: nuke net.general? & a radical proposal
Message-ID: <8335@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-84 16:21:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.8335
Posted: Sun Jun 24 16:21:10 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Jun-84 06:19:15 EDT
References: <32@cbosgd.UUCP>, <105@stc70.UUCP>
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
Lines: 105

In summary: don't nuke net.general -- and change the newsgroup
structure.

I'm just now catching up on my news (almost 2800 articles in 2 weeks!)
and this discussion has generated some interesting points.  However,
the only reasons put forth by the "nuke net.general" faction seem to be
along the lines of
	"I don't subscribe to it.  No one I know subscribes to it.
	 Besides, it isn't what we intended it to be."
Well, I subscribe to it.  And to net.followup.  And net.misc. And about
30 other groups.  I have been reading them for over 18 months.  And
there are items in there I find useful now and then.  I can't be the
only one reading the groups -- look at the volume of posted material.
We're seeing an evolutionary definition of what the groups are for
which seems stronger than the "creationist" published definition of the
group (maybe I should post this to net.origins :-).

The point I'm trying to make is:  the groups are being used.  If you
don't want to read 'em, unsubscribe.  I agree that they could be
combined into one large group of just general content.  As cepu!scw
noted, we should probably remove net.misc and direct all of its traffic
to net.general, instead.  Maybe we should combine net.followup with
net.general, too.  We need a general-interest, non-specific group for
postings.  If we remove net.general, all of that traffic is going to go
somewhere else (maybe we should use net.wobegon, Chuq?).

The point has also been made that there are a number of *.general
groups in existence.  We should keep net.general for compatability's
sake.  For instance, here we have "atl.general" and "ga.general"
newsgroups.  The kinds of articles that appear in those groups are of
general nature, if not always of general interest.  That is also how
most people perceive "net.general", I believe.

net.announce should be changed to mod.announce to accurately reflect
its true nature.  Due to its single-source nature, this should be easy
to accomplish.


Now for a radical proposal:

We've had a lot of discussion in this group (and others) about the
structure of the news and the difficulty of changing the status quo.
Personally, I think most of it isn't correct.  I think we could pull
off a wholesale change in the news structure with only a couple of
weeks of minor confusion, if even that.  We have the news and mail as
major tools, we only need to use them properly.  Let me propose Spaf's
solution to the net debate (I so enjoy entropy):

	1) Decide on an altered newsgroup structure.  No timidity
	   here.  Merge net.general, net.misc and net.followup.  Move a
	   bunch of groups under net.sci.  Create a couple of new
	   subgroups under net.wanted, remove net.wobegon, create a
	   bunch of "usa." and "world." groups, or whatever else it
	   takes to come up with a logical topic structure (WITHOUT
	   worrying about how different it may be from the current
	   structure).

	2) Publicize the new structure in a mass posting to all
	   the effected and appropriate groups.  Set a date for a
	   changeover.  Communicate directly with the SAs at the
	   backbone sites, and maybe at the first level out from the
	   backbone and make sure they have the details.

	3) For 2-4-? weeks, have the new structure in parallel with
	   the current groups.  Encourage all of our enlightened
	   netters to post to BOTH the current groups and the new
	   groups, as appropriate.

	4) On a pre-announced day (say, July 23, which my J. C. Duffy
	   calendar lists as the beginning of "Caution-to-the-Winds"
	   week), have all the SAs at backbones, etc. send out rmgroup
	   messages on the groups which are in the current
	   configuration but not the new structure.  Also, post a major
	   notice to everywhere appropriate as to the change.

Once this is done, postings to the old groups won't go very far since
all the backbone sites (and others) won't have the groups anymore.  The
few week changeover period will make sure that the people have time to
get adjusted to the change, and that the groups don't start out empty.

If we start now, we'll probably be able to pull it off before the fall
season starts at most campuses.  Communication and co-ordination are a
great asset to us all, but we have to use it.  We'll have a more
logical structure in place which we can PLAN out ahead of time, and
structure with an eye to future growth and based on past experience.  I
fear that the net is growing and changing at a rate much too fast for
the kind of graceful, evolutionary change that Adam defends.  The
situation is not going to get better on its own, nor is continuing to
stand around and nod our heads in agreement about the state of Usenet
going to cause the necessary changes to occur.

Well?  Comments?  Flames?  Kudos?

Oh, and a final note, could we refrain from using the term "nuke"
anymore, please?  If we nuke net.wobegon, for instance, I don't want to
have to deal with any radioactively-mutated net.women running amok in
my /usr/spool/news directory as a result of the fallout (if you know
what I mean, and I'm sure you do).
-- 
Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
Phone:	(404) 894-6169, (404) 894-6170 [messages]
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
	...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf