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