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.