Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!well!l5!gnu From: gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Demonstrated Volume Message-ID: <232@l5.uucp> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 06:45:36 EST Article-I.D.: l5.232 Posted: Tue Oct 29 06:45:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:15:02 EST References: <5717@fortune.UUCP> <629@ecsvax.UUCP> <1828@hao.UUCP> Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco Lines: 22 In article <1828@hao.UUCP>, woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > 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. Uh, where is the Demonstrated Volume of postings in mod.computers.gould? I haven't seen Gould Wizards begging for a new newsgroup and flooding net.micro.cbm with inappropriate postings because they haven't been given their own group. Yet somehow Spaf thought it met his "new newsgroup" criteria, while at the same time thinking that net.internat did not. Is this just a bit of "mod chauvanism" creeping in? It's OK to create a new *moderated* group but not a new *unmoderated* group? Or is it just plain inconsistent with the rules that Greg and Spaf are spouting? Personally I think Demonstrated Volume is a bad way to pick, since the most interesting newsgroups for me are those where I don't have to wade thru 50 messages a day. But before we debate whether D.V. is a good criterion, I think we should acknowledge that it is *not* an inviolate part of the current rules for newsgroup creation -- according to both recent and distant history.