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