Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!gatech!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: the trouble with all these rules is... Message-ID: <3113@nsc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 13:38:58 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.3113 Posted: Mon Aug 12 13:38:58 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 02:47:31 EDT References: <10609@Glacier.ARPA> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Uncle Chuqui's Lemming Farm Lines: 47 In article <10609@Glacier.ARPA> reid@Glacier.UUCP (Brian Reid) writes: >Counter to the official USENET policy, I assert that the only true reason >to prohibit every clown SA who know how to type "inews -C" from creating an >"official" newsgroup is the name space pollution that Chuqui constantly >worries about. This is a real problem, and basically nothing except >authoritarianism can fix it. I tend to back up Brian on this. If there was a good way to dynamically flex the naming space to meet what the network needs, I'd jump at it. What I've pushed for in the past is to simply allow all group requests to be created if there seems to be any reasonable excuse for it to exist, but to get rid of the groups who have either passed out of the 'fad' stage into oblivion or simply didn't really meet the need. The big problem is that once a group exists, it is almost impossible to delete again, so we make it difficult for potentially useful groups like (rlr will kill me for this...) net.music.jazz from being created because groups like net.theater or net.games.go -- groups that either didn't prove out their potential or didn't survive the initial faddish interest -- become almost impossible to get rid of. If we could shrink the naming space as easily as we could grow it, I'd LOVE to simply let a group prove itself or not in practice. Unfortunately, the network seems to feel that deleting groups is fascist, and any attempt to do so dumps lots of rotten vegetables on the heads of those who try. Because of this, it is almost as hard to create a group as it is to delete one, and I think everyone loses because of it. Personally, I'd love to work out some 'standard' criteria for what makes a viable newsgroup, and then let groups get created by some very liberal standard. If it doesn't work out in 90 days, nuke it, and then review the naming space every six months or so. Nah... terribly fascist... *grin* >I would also like to assert that the way a person beccomes a USENET bigwig >is to start acting like one. One of the ways he can start acting like one is >to say important things and act official. I'll agree wholeheartedly to this... If you're willing to duck rotten vegetables, talk loudly and occasionally seem to make sense, eventually people expect you to give up evenings and weekends and work at keeping the net running smoothly so that they can use it to call you a fascist... I wasn't elected, I sort of backed into it by default in just this way. I certainly wouldn't try to stop new blood from working on the network -- the best ideas tend to come from those that don't know what you can't do, and do it anyway... -- Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui