Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh
From: dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Fear and Loathing on the Clouds
Message-ID: <535@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 09:29:10 EST
Article-I.D.: scirtp.535
Posted: Fri Nov  1 09:29:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Nov-85 04:24:19 EST
References: <614@h-sc1.UUCP> <1817@hao.UUCP> <326@pedsgd.UUCP> <10819@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <641@ecsvax.UUCP> <534@scirtp.UUCP> <662@ecsvax.U1 Nov 85 09:29:10 EST
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.news:4264 net.news.group:4279

> >> Horsepuckey, Eric!  I was around when mod.movies, mod.motss, mod.singles
> >> and a few other mod.... groups were created (H*ll, I was moderator of
> >> mod.movies.)  There wasn't any vote taken, no consensus gathered, etc.
> >
> >Bullwinkle Byron!
> >If you're going to use an example, use a relevant one.  I don't think
> >the stork created net.announce overnight.  I remember some discussion,
> >though not a whole lot.  Why?  Net.announce.newusers?  Who on the the
> >net would object to a newsgroup that would keep verbage out of other
> >groups?  Besides, who reads net.announce.newusers on a regular basis?
> >Net.announce was created (as I remember after some discussion) to clean
> >up net.general (which didn't work).
> 
> *You* use a relevant example.  I simply said that, contrary to current
> myth, their have been legitimate groups created without netwide discussion.
> Eric simply asserted that it had never happend.  You *seem* to be agreeing
> with me.

Geesh.  Net.announce *is* relevant.  
Eric was pushing the issue when he said "NEVER".  I aggree that "NEVER" is
not entirely correct.  However, I don't think these minor exceptions matter.
Perpetuation of the ideals of group-creationism is wrong and should not be 
used as an argument, much less a justification.

> >And I presume that *poof* mod.movies was created by an unknown net god and
> >spaketh thus "Hey, who wants to be moderator of this neat group?"
> 
> Other than the fact that the netgod wasn't unknown, that's just about the way
> it happened.

I don't really think the "mod" groups count as genuine "news groups" since 
they are moderated.  I see the mod groups more as Arpa-style mailing lists
that get posted instead of mailed.

Ok, It may have happened that way, but it isn't right.  Creation OR deletion
of groups without a concensus is still wrong.  See above complaint about
justification.

> >Eric is generally right.  By and large most new groups were created
> >after a concensus was obtained.  A concensus should be obtained before
> >those groups are deleted.
> 
> (1) By and large and generally don't count.  He said that groups had *never*
> been created without discussion.  (2) We're discussing the legitimacy of
> the creation of net.internat, not it's deletion.  Get some context before
> you flame.

(1) Wumpus pus.  By and large does count.  On an ad hoc network as large 
as USENET, "by and large" is the ONLY way things can be done since there is 
no single controlling entity - nor should there be. (2) Exactly.

>                                               Byron Howes
> 				   ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch

-- 
				David Hinnant
				SCI Systems, Inc.
				{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfh