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