Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wnuxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!hw3b!wnuxb!netnews
From: netnews@wnuxb.UUCP (Ron Heiby)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Stargate new groups?
Message-ID: <354@wnuxb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 14:59:04 EST
Article-I.D.: wnuxb.354
Posted: Thu Jan 17 14:59:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 03:42:49 EST
Organization: AT&T - Warrenville Data Center, IL
Lines: 35

First, let me say that I am in basic agreement with Lauren and Mark (Horton)
on the needs for moderation, the economics of distributing trash, and several
other matters that don't occur to me just now.

Last night I was thinking about how new newsgroups are created in the current
USENET.  It seems to be something like this:
	1) Someone suggests the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR.
	2) Someone else says that since there has never been much discussion
		of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed.
	3) People start posting FOOBAR messages to inappropriate groups
		or "trash" groups like net.misc, net.general, etc.
	4) Someone suggests the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR.
	5) net.FOOBAR is created (after some N days of discussion).

Now then, what may happen with a fully moderated stargate distribution
(which I favor)?  Here's one scenario:
	1) Someone sends an article to the moderator for sat.news.groups
		suggesting the need for a newsgroup to discuss FOOBAR.
	2) Moderator posts the message to sat.news.groups.  The groundrules
		call for "votes" to be sent either to him/her or to the
		original suggester (doesn't matter much).
	3) People send "votes" saying that since there has never been
		much discussion of FOOBAR, that no new group is needed.
	4) People start trying to post FOOBAR messages to inappropriate
		groups, where they are rejected by the moderators.
	5) Discussions concerning FOOBAR never start.

Looking at the above, it appears that my scenario has as its problem, the
"there has to be discussion before a group is needed" problem.  There are
probably other problems involved, as well.  Any thoughts on how new
newsgroups might get "off the ground" :-)?
-- 
Ronald W. Heiby
AT&T Something (used to be Comp Sys Div, but don't ask me now.), Inc.
Lisle, IL  (CU-D21) / ...!ihnp4!wnuxa!heiby or ...!ihnp4!wnuxb!netnews