Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!piet From: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group,net.flame Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <867@mcvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 06:59:06 EST Article-I.D.: mcvax.867 Posted: Thu Oct 31 06:59:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:46:11 EST References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) Distribution: net Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 72 Xref: watmath net.news:4220 net.news.group:4167 net.flame:12593 >The case of net.internat is especially distressing, as this >newsgroup's signal-to-noise ratio has reached heights heretofore >undreamt of on USENET. >The content of the groups is not the issue. >But, we have to wake up and face reality: we can NO LONGER AFFORD to allow >anyone to post whatever they want whenever they want. It just isn't practical >any more. We have two choices: do something about it (i.e. change "the >character of the net") or let the net collapse under its own weight. >....desire of a number of people is NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS to create >a newsgroup. >Equally peculiar is Spafford's claim that net.internat was starte >as a wildcat newsgroup. As postings on net.internat itself have >made clear, the group was mandated at an EUUG meeting. >Since when does EUUG get to make worldwide decisions? If that's the case, >let them create eur.internat. >Its cancellation is even more peculiar. On the basis of Spaf's own >postings, this group seems to be the summum bonum: a technical group >(easy to justify to management) with a relatively small, but >nontrivial volume, in which over 50% of the postings have something >new and interesting to say. >Once again, the content of the group is not at issue. >New groups increase traffic; that is a fact. Summing up: - a sheer number of people/votes is not enough to create a new group; - the contents of a new group don't justify its creation; - an international forum, like an EUUG meeting (that *not* only Europeans did attend) is not a place to decide about creation of a new group; - (still) only "established need" justifies creation of a new group. Conclusion: there's no way a new group can ever more be created, unless you flood another group on a net already "collapsing under its own weight".... Bullshit! Now first of all leave the narrow viewpoint of a USENET that stops at the boundaries of the United States. It really reaches farther these days, covering a large part of the world. Then take a look at why this network can exist worldwide at all: that's because of the very presence of technical newsgroups, that justify the very high transmission costs to spread the news all over the net; all the other groups in this sense are just noise, that of necessity *must* have a limited distribution. And then judge for yourself if the creation of a new technical group should be judged on the same basis as new noisegroups. Obviously not. So the contents of (new) groups *are* important, very important! And the statement that new groups just increase traffic? Yes, for noisegroups; but certainly not for technical groups: there new groups provide an excellent means of specializing and thus limiting the traffic! It was for these reasons that net.internat was created; true, it didn't follow the established procedures; there's no excuse for that. But the Copenhagen meeting proved that there was need for it, primarily in Europe, but also elsewhere; the discussion following the creation of the group clearly showed that. Of course the group could have been restricted to Europe only by creating it as eunet.internat (we don't know about eur.* groups), but given the wider interest it would have been unwise and very narrow-minded to do so. That's why it came into existence as net.internat. But the rmgroup of net.internat was just as unwise and unnecessary, given the interest it had (and still has). And that's exactly why even some US backbones refused to go along with it, so some or most of you still get it. And if you regret having been cut off: net.internat will be back soon.... -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)