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: net.internat
Message-ID: <1827@hao.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 15:06:20 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1827
Posted: Mon Oct 28 15:06:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 06:57:09 EST
References: <471@cheviot.uucp>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 69

> For the first time we have a group created to fulfill a real need and
> the netlords decide we cant have it!! 

  The problem is, the only need demonstrated for the group was shown AFTER
the group was created improperly. The rules for newsgroup creation CLEARLY
state that the FIRST thing that must happen is sufficient volume of postings
must appear in other groups to justify creation of a new group. If they
don't, then there's no need for the group. There is nothing to stop you
from discussing a new topic in an existing group. IF the topic generates
a lot of traffic, THEN propose a new group.

> I bet there were more people at the
> Copenhagen meeting than there were votes for net.auto.tech or some such thing. Why waste money on transmitting votes about when you can arrange

   Maybe so. net.auto.tech was not created because of the votes for it. It
was created because there was a demonstrated volume of postings in net.auto
to justify a new group.

> net.internat fills a critical need in the os
> world at this time and its about time that the US woke up to the fact
> there are other people and cultures out there.

   For the 101st time, the content of the group is not why it was removed.
I think that SHOULD be clear to anyone who can read by this time.

> I think disguising
> bigotry by flaming about voting procedures is utterly despicable. 

  Then why are YOU doing it?? Read your last two sentences. I think YOU
are the bigot. Read what you're saying. "It's the Americans fault, we Europeans
are better than that, we would NEVER stoop to such a low level". You are using
accusations of bigotry as a somkescreen to hide the fact that your pet group
was created improperly. THE CONTENT OF THE GROUP IS NOT AT ISSUE. Nor is
who created it. The objection to it is SOLELY based on HOW it was created.

> As I
> said above we have to put up with ridiculous newsgroups so I dont see
> why the US shouldnt put up with something useful for a change. 

  The US is perfectly willing to "put up with", and probably even (gasp!)
participate in and benefit from, discussions on this topic, provided that
the group is created properly. The reason that we HAVE the rules for creating
groups are to cut down growth of traffic and to PREVENT discussing the merits
of a particular topic and confine new group discussions to whether the group
is NEEDED, as opposed to whether we should discuss the topic.

> Yes, the
> net does seem to be full of flamers and cranks with very little
> technical content, but it is noticeable that there are very few (if any)
> flames from outside the US part of the net - the people in the real
> world out here cant afford the comms charges and try and keep it
> technical. 

  Another VERY thinly-veiled bigoted remark. If that doesn't qualify as
"garbage", then what does? And, it came from Europe! :-) :-)

> So lets make a choice NOW - either we have  a sensible net
> (and net.internat is certainly sensible) or we just forget it. 

  I agree. I vote for a sensible net, which means no random creation of
even USEFUL newsgroups, until a demonstrated need for the group has
been established.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

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