Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site adobe.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!adobe!greid From: greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group Subject: Re: the recent rmgroups have started me thinking ... Message-ID: <777@adobe.UUCP> Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 01:53:19 EDT Article-I.D.: adobe.777 Posted: Fri Oct 25 01:53:19 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:09:49 EDT References: <179@mit-eddie.UUCP> Reply-To: greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) Organization: Adobe Systems, Palo Alto Lines: 50 Xref: linus net.news:3329 net.news.group:3290 Summary: Right. I was in on the creation of net.bizarre (my apologies)--rather, once it was created improperly, I voted for its continuation as a "legal" group. People on the net took pains to conduct the polling and consesus stuff pretty officially, and the group was finally allowed to exist based on the responses of people from all over the net. The discussion was even held open for a number of weeks, as I recall (although somebody will no doubt flame me for my poor memory). In any case, the group has existed for some months without *ANY* grumblings about its not being legal. If you didn't like the way it was created, you had your chance to voice that when the discussion was going on in net. news.group. How come all of a sudden, given some of the foolishness that is posted there (you might note, by the way, that the quality is gradually improving...) Gene and others decide that it must not have been created legally, because they don't like what is being posted to it. It is too late for that. You should have opened a discussion in net.news.group. But you already know that, thanks to some carefully-thought-out arguments that have recently appeared in this group. I rescind my earlier contention that it is OK to just not forward a group, but please don't rmgroup it. I realize that the net is not an anarchy, but it was easy to type. That had little to do with my original point. I don't think it is up to an individual site to decide if it likes a group or not. It can decide if it likes the *net* or not, and is free to leave it if it doesn't like it. If a site participates in the net, though, it really is obligated to forward things. Or actively generate support for re-vamping things. Not to just rmgroup net.whatever. This makes things a bit delicate. If a number of the "backbone" sites decide that they are sick of the net altogether, they will ruin the current topology of the net. However, the net will persist, just watch. There needs to be a way to control the growth of the net, since it is getting to be leviathan, but any given site just isn't going to make that much difference in the long run. I have been reading the net for three years, just like a lot of other people, and you aren't fooling me. I don't approve of sites taking things into their own hands in any form. This includes "ignoring" rmgroups, "recreating" groups, etc., etc. When one error is made, or somebody like Gene removes net.bizarre, the worst thing that could happen is for each of the site administrators to take some action which he/she thinks is appropriate. What is proper is probably to take no immediate action ("delay" the action--use MANUAL) and to tune in to net.news.group to see what the hell is going on. Glenn Reid {glacier,decwrl}!adobe!greid -- You have new mail.