Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!spectrix!John_M
From: John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: talk.* =? net.* (Re: Poll: Should all Usenet newsgroups be moderated?)
Keywords: Usenet, newsgroup, moderate
Message-ID: <702@spectrix.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jun 88 18:32:52 GMT
References: <3220@s.cc.purdue.edu> <690@spectrix.UUCP> 
Reply-To: jmm@lsuc.UUCP (John Macdonald)
Organization: soon to be announced
Lines: 31

In article  webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes:
%In article <690@spectrix.UUCP>, John_M@spectrix.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes:
%< Specifically, I think that all groups outside of talk should be
%< moderated.  The talk hierarchy should be expanded to include at least
%< talk.comp.misc, talk.rec.misc, talk.soc.misc, and talk.sci.misc.
%< ...
%
%Just out of curiousity, do you realize that your proposal means that talk.*
%would de facto be the old net.* and the rest of the net would be various
%descendants of mod.*.  I guess we can add you to the list of people who
%opposed the ``Great Renaming Fiasco.''
%
%---- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)

It would be similar to the old system in that there would be an obvious
distinction between moderated and non-moderated groups.

However, the old system had a nearly flat naming structure, compared to
the current hierarchical organization.  The mod vs. net distinction was
the ONLY clear distinction that was made - the current groupings for
comp, rec, soc, etc. are a major step forward.

I do not want to lose the descriptive power current of the current naming
scheme.  Moving a group into talk does not mean that it would go back to
its pre-Renaming one-dimensional name with net changed to talk, but would
keep its current multi-level name with talk prepended.

I did not oppose the ``Great Renaming Rationalization'', I approved it
whole-heartedly and still do.
-- 
John Macdonald   UUCP:    lsuc!jmm  (for now)