Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!bch From: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds Message-ID: <662@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:27:26 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.662 Posted: Thu Oct 31 09:27:26 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 06:18:07 EST References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP> <326@pedsgd.UUCP> <10819@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <641@ecsvax.UUCP> <534@scirtp.UUCP> Reply-To: bch@ecsvax.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) Organization: N C Educational Computing Service Lines: 53 Xref: watmath net.news:4208 net.news.group:4146 Summary: In article <534@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >> In article <10819@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) >> writes: >> >Let's get something straight: while the USENET has been discussed at >> >BOF meetings at the various USENIX Conferences, there has NEVER been an >> >action taken on the network with out the usual procedure of building >> >consensus on the network itself. >> >> Horsepuckey, Eric! I was around when mod.movies, mod.motss, mod.singles >> and a few other mod.... groups were created (H*ll, I was moderator of >> mod.movies.) There wasn't any vote taken, no consensus gathered, etc. > >Bullwinkle Byron! > >If you're going to use an example, use a relevant one. I don't think >the stork created net.announce overnight. I remember some discussion, >though not a whole lot. Why? Net.announce.newusers? Who on the the >net would object to a newsgroup that would keep verbage out of other >groups? Besides, who reads net.announce.newusers on a regular basis? >Net.announce was created (as I remember after some discussion) to clean >up net.general (which didn't work). *You* use a relevant example. I simply said that, contrary to current myth, their have been legitimate groups created without netwide discussion. Eric simply asserted that it had never happend. You *seem* to be agreeing with me. >And I presume that *poof* mod.movies was created by an unknown net god and >spaketh thus "Hey, who wants to be moderator of this neat group?" Other than the fact that the netgod wasn't unknown, that's just about the way it happened. >Eric is generally right. By and large most new groups were created >after a concensus was obtained. A concensus should be obtained before >those groups are deleted. (1) By and large and generally don't count. He said that groups had *never* been created without discussion. (2) We're discussing the legitimacy of the creation of net.internat, not it's deletion. Get some context before you flame. > >-- > David Hinnant > SCI Systems, Inc. > {decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh -- Byron Howes System Manager -- NCECS ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch