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 topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!lear
From: lear@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Put bad newsgroups on probation before killing them.
Message-ID: <4181@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 14:54:24 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.4181
Posted: Sat Nov  9 14:54:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 05:38:27 EST
References: <148@sdcc7.UUCP> <8998@ritcv.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 48

I would like to say that I agree with Mike Lutz's article
<8998@ritcv.UUCP> in principle.  I believe a milder change might be in
order first.  If a group is being considered for removal, it would
seem to me that a message should be sent to BOTH net.news.group and
that group saying so.  Maybe the best thing to do would be to ask for
votes (including reasons why the group should exist when that is in
question) as to whether there is still enough interest in the group.
If the group doesn't pass the parameters needed to create a new group
then it should be aliased to a group like net.sb.

[The rest of this article applies to creation of new groups as well as
 those being considered for removal.]

As far as who votes...  I don't care but 2 things MUST be taken into
consideration:

1)	Is the group constructive?  Is it of any practical / intellectual
	value or is it more net.garbage?

2)	Is there an audience among the net.community for such a group?  I
	would love to see a group like mod.economics but I cannot imagine
	such a group attracting a large audience.  (Maybe I'm wrong about
	that too.)

	The problem with only polling SAs of backbone sites is that
they cannot show interest in EVERY group on the net.  Maybe the SAs of
all sites should locally poll their users and report the info to their
nearest backbone SA who can then vote from that information.  (I guess
that is like the Senator/constituent method.)  Of course, the problem
here is that the burden falls upon too many people to take a survey
for a group like net.cooking.soups....  In any event, the "Powers that
be" (ie Spaf and company) could use these figures to guide (but not
necessarily govern) them in creating/removing groups.  All I am really
trying to say (in an admittedly verbose manner) is that the views of
the masses must be taken into account.  Using this method, of course,
would eliminate suprise rmgroups too.

		Comments?
		Flames > /dev/null.

					eliot
-- 

Should the opinions expressed above be those of someone else besides the
author..  Well.. it ain't my fault.

[lear@topaz.rutgers.edu]
[{allegra,seismo}!topaz!lear]