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