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