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