Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!wls From: wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: the recent rmgroups have started me thinking ... Message-ID: <677@astrovax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 10:07:40 EST Article-I.D.: astrovax.677 Posted: Tue Oct 29 10:07:40 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 06:44:52 EST References: <179@mit-eddie.UUCP> <777@adobe.UUCP> <1824@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics Lines: 21 Xref: watmath net.news:4180 net.news.group:4068 In article <1824@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > This does not in any way change the fact that THERE WAS NO PREVIOUSLY >DEMONSTRATED NEED for the group. How many times does it need to be repeated >before it penetrates your thick skull? VOTES ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS >FOR CREATING A NEW GROUP, no matter HOW many votes there are. But I believe votes should be sufficient (I have never approved of the present rules, in particular the rule that a discussion on a subject be already present). I believe that it is getting to the point where we should officially recognize that some weight should be attached to the "worth" of a proposed group's subject. In particular technical groups should be easier to create than recreational groups. "Technical" should be interpreted loosely here: I mean by technical some subject related to somebody's work. For instance, net.astro.* are technical groups for us. This could perhaps be weighed by the number of sites to whom the subject is a technical one, although as the net population drifts the balance may change... -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls