Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!botter!klipper.cs.vu.nl!biep From: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Suggestion for new newsgroup creation rule. Message-ID: <1055@klipper.cs.vu.nl> Date: 30 Jun 88 17:41:10 GMT References: <960@ficc.UUCP> <2474@ukecc.engr.uky.edu> <11237@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1821@van-bc.UUCP> Reply-To: biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam Lines: 30 In article <1821@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >>>> (1) Create the group in "new". >>>> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >>>> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. >Well at least we could be polite about it. Perhaps I may point out that you are talking to Weemba. :-) >How about a new.* hierarchy. With the same distribution rules as alt.*. >Don't send it to a site unless asked for. Anyone can feel free to create new >groups to try out a theme or discussion. If it's successful they can >petition to be moved into a more permanent distribution - alt - comp - rec, >or wherever is appropriate. Nice. I request one extra rule, however: no group can stay longer than three months. After that it has to move somewhere else, and will be consistently rmgrouped. This way people will feel less need to disconnect from the hierarchy, as they know the group they have problems with is going to go away soon anyway. Perhaps it would still be a good idea if it were the Backbone that issued the newgroup messages. This to prevent little children from using it as their playyard. [BTW, why do USsians refer to children as "kids", and to kids as "Tommy goats"?] -- Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax) Never define a word before you know its meaning