Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!mjl
From: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Put bad newsgroups on probation before killing them.
Message-ID: <8998@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 21:18:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.8998
Posted: Mon Nov  4 21:18:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 05:11:05 EST
References: <148@sdcc7.UUCP>
Reply-To: mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Michael Lutz)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 71

This proposal (probationary periods for groups that are getting out of
hand) seems to be on the right track.  At least it addresses an area
for which there is no well-formed policy, but for which one is
desperately needed: the protocol for newsgroup deletion.  I'd like to
add a couple of related proposals, but I want to make certain my
position is clear.

1.	There is no doubt that the backbone sites (and many of the
ribs, like us) are being swamped by the sheer volume of news.

2.	Most of the volume is generated in a few mega-flamage groups,
some of which, unfortunately, seemed like a neat idea when the net
was younger and smaller.  I personally see no reason why we have to
continue to live with the mistakes of our youth.

3.	The current newsgroup creation rules are inadequate to address
the problems of volume, yet inhibit the evolution of the net by
making it nigh on impossible to legally go off on a new tangent,
no matter how useful, beneficial, or any other motherhood quality.

So what to do?  It seems to me that I've seen 3 distinct outcomes to
the creation of a newgroup, each of which warrants a different
response.

1.	The group has a bunch of submissions initially, but eventually
it turns out to be too narrow or too dull.  We need some "sunset" rules
to clean up the corpses of these dead groups.  I consider this an annoying
but benign problem (like fallen arches).

2.	The group has a consistent, moderate traffic volume.  "Moderate"
is a subjective term, but that's life folks.  Indeed, moderate may
differ from group to group.  In any event, such groups are the ones
we should encourage, as they provide valuable service to a wide audience
at a reasonable (acceptable?) cost.

3.	The group evolves into a haven for flamers and those who should
be in Hyde Park.  Such groups are cancerous, and are the ones threatening
the net's survival.  Perhaps we should first try "chemotherapy", like
probation, to see whether we can bring the group under control.  If this
doesn't work, we need radical surgery.
	The surgery I propose is a new subcategory of net.* called net.sb
(for soapbox groups).  Groups considered cancerous would be moved there,
using the alias mechanism.  What is more, *no* site would be under any
moral, ethical, or any other constraint to carry such groups.  If there
is enough interest in the "topic," the sites interested in it could
still pass the stuff around in any way they liked.

Ok, who decides when a group is dead?  What is moderate traffic,
valuable service, acceptable cost?  When does a group become
cancerous?  Well, as an SA on a (small) rib, I'd like a say, of course.
However, I think the backbone sites should have a bigger say, and I'd
be willing to give up my vote on the assumption that the backbone SA's,
as a group, are rational, reasonable persons.  So far, I have no reason
to believe otherwise.  Something like a 2/3 majority of the voting
sites would invoke one of these mechanisms.

To keep this from being too secret, there must be a forum for
discussing impending changes.  Nothing ticks off the populace like an
unexpected change in the environment.  Also, once a decision has been
arrived at by the sites having votes, I think that the result of the
vote (just for/against/abstain) should be published.  In the case of
net.sb groups, those willing to keep supporting the groups might want
to advertise that fact.

Comments welcome.  Flames are detected by my infallible expert mail
reading system, and will be dropped on the floor (after automatically
replying with a viscious, cutting remark like "So's your old man."
-- 
Mike Lutz	Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY
UUCP:		{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl
CSNET:		mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA