Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version VT1.00C 11/1/84; site vortex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!petrus!bellcore!vortex!lauren
From: lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Net.software.projects group idea--Not a good idea
Message-ID: <743@vortex.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 20:33:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: vortex.743
Posted: Thu Aug 15 20:33:18 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 06:26:28 EDT
References: <150@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles
Lines: 67

I disagree with this concept.  It's IMPOSSIBLE to keep followups from
being posted to such groups, and I frankly am beginning to doubt that
the network can handle much more stuff being sent to every site when
it really only needs to go to a relatively few individuals.  A more
reasonable scenario is to post ideas for projects in the groups that
deal with those topics, then collect the names of interested parties
and run a mailing list after that.  If you want to do something
with a C compiler (free or commercial) then the idea can go to 
the C newsgroup, and the author can collect the names of interested
parties and proceed from that point with a specific mailing list.
If you have an analog project, use the existing analog group.

An advantage of using already existing groups is that they (by
definition) already reach the people interested in those topics.
This seems far superior to creating another group that will
inevitably generate random queries and followups and the usual
amount of newsgroup "noise."

There are group projects going on now via mailing lists, without
forcing the entire network to pass around all that traffic.  If the
volume of such proposed projects became extremely immense, then a separate
newsgroup *might* make sense--but even then I would tend to say
that posting such queries to the specific technical group in 
question would be superior.

Network traffic is starting to go suddenly out of control again.
100K+ postings to net.tv.drwho.  100K postings (old bibliographies)
to net.research.  Endless, useless muck burying an occasional
gem in net.bizarre.  Intense use of followups of included text
in both technical and non-technical groups.  One local site found
one of their dialups lines virtually CONTINUOUSLY in use trying
to handle netnews feeds and is on the verge of turning off netnews
completely.

One of the major problems with creating new groups is that each
group carries with it a certain amount of new "noise"--users
who don't know what they are doing, inappropriate queries,
voluminous back postings and included text, etc.  A new group
tends to be an excuse for all sorts of garbage--look again at 
net.bizarre, which started out well enough but has quickly
become bogged down in every bit of computer trash that people
have laying around.  In a short time it will probably be just
like net.flame--99% useless--and we *really* didn't need to
double the amount of net-flame-like traffic in an environment
where major sites are bogged down, other sites are cutting off
some or all groups, and we're STILL faced with enormous growth
in terms of numbers of submitting sites.

So, to the extent that it is possible, let's TRY to use existing
groups instead of creating new ones.  An occasional project
idea for, for example, a C processor can go to the C groups,
just as other sorts of queries could go there and reach people
interested in C.  We don't create a general-purpose "query"
group to which all queries, on whatever topics, should be posted;
we instead post our queries to the specific group of interest,

I feel strongly that the same principle applies here.  It would
apply even if the network had infinite bandwidth and cost
nothing whatever to run, which it most certainly does not.

--Lauren--

P.S.  Sorry for the lateness of this reply, but I haven't received
much netnews for three days due, you guessed it, to a clog at
a major site.

--LW--