Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Reform net.internat
Message-ID: <1828@hao.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 15:48:36 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1828
Posted: Mon Oct 28 15:48:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 06:57:41 EST
References: <5717@fortune.UUCP> <629@ecsvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 48

> There seems to be the myth lying around that all newsgroups have gone
> through some form of democratic voting process to be created.  

  I don't think that is true. In fact, I remember that net.suicide was
created as a joke during a debate on motorcycle helmets, so that those
who wanted to ride without helmets would have someplace to talk. :-)
Net.suicide still exists, and no one is suggesting its removal at this time.
In the old days, before exponential growth of phone bills, we could get
away with this. But no more. No one said every existing group was created
according to the present rules. All we are saying is that any NEW groups
must be created according to the current rules. The net is now too big
to be a total anarchy.

> net.internat was created by mandate of EUNET.  I have no problem with this,
> and I think declaring it an illegal group is an exceptionally parochial thing
> to do. 

  What does parochialism have to do with it? That is, as has been stated 
MANY times now, an irrelevant issue. The ONLY objection to the group is that
its creator did not follow accepted procedure for creating NETWIDE groups.

> Perhaps there should have been private discussion as to the name
> of net.internet among the netgods, but the group itself has sufficient 
> legitimacy by virtue of EUNET sponsorship to bypass the voting procedure.

  This is a debatable issue. I do not agree. The way I interpret the newsgroup
creation rules is that you must first have a DEMONSTRATED VOLUME of postings
before proposing new groups. Maybe that should be changed, I don't know.
But the way things are CURRENTLY set up, neither EUUG nor USENIX can mandate
the creation of new groups.

> I also refuse to honor the rmgroup.

  That is, of course, your right as a net site. However, if the backbone does
honor the rmgroup, it won't be much of a netwide group.

> Were I on EUNET I would by highly offended by Spaf's actions.

  Only if you presume that his motivation was due to the origin of the
create message or the content of the group. As I understand it, these things
have NOTHING to do with it.
 
--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY