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