Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Suggestion for new newsgroup creation rule. Message-ID: <2378@inco.UUCP> Date: 30 Jun 88 20:53:58 GMT References: <960@ficc.UUCP> <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA Lines: 33 In article <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <960@ficc.UUCP> peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Now that alt is here to stay, might I suggest a new newsgroup creation rule: >> >> (1) Create the group in "alt". >> (2) Demonstrate volume and friendliness. >> (3) Get the *backbone* to vote on admitting it. > >Starting groups in alt won't help certain kinds of groups because alt has >a limited distribution and a particular (and unrepresentative) kind of >readership. Serious kinds of groups would do especially badly. Hence, >a group might do badly in alt which would do well in some other kind >of distribution and vice versa. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the alt hierarchy. How about a "trial" hierarchy? Hey, Backbone! Yeah, you. Will you propagate the trial hierarchy? For maximum flexibility, newsgroup proposers (proposeurs?) could choose between requesting a group in the standard (Spaffordized) hierarchy, with discussion period and voting, and immediately creating the group in the trial hierarchy. >>By the way, what's a "Brahms Gang"? > >The net stupidity police. Pity they can't decide whether to promote or prevent it. >-Trish Roberts Dave Mack Speaker for the Left Hand of the Net