Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!mailrus!rutgers!pyrnj!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Suggestion for new newsgroup creation rule.
Message-ID: <5412@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jul 88 14:44:29 GMT
References: <960@ficc.UUCP> <11275@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <9775@g.ms.uky.edu> <11582@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1809@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 29

In article <1809@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <11582@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> skyler@violet.berkeley.edu writes:
>>Putting a group in alt would not be discrimination.  It would, quite
>>simply, not give the information which a decision on a group requires.
>
>Exactly the opposite, I would say, although I still suggest "trial"
>instead of "alt".
>
>Having a 'trial' distribution of *deliberately* limited distribution is
>exactly what we want.  You get the most adventuresome, tolerant sites
>trying out the group without bothering (and costing) the entire net.

Unless these adventuresome, tolerant (AT) sites all lie in one subnet,
I don't see how they could receive trial.* without costing the net.
The backbone would have to carry trial.* or it wouldn't get around at
all; also the secondary sites who feed these AT folks would have to
carry it, albeit at the explicit request of AT sysadmins.  Ultimately a
significant fraction of the secondaries would probably be involved,
especially if trial.* were an umbrella for trial groups of every
description.  The ones who would save would be conservative leaf sites,
who would gain the privilege of proceeding in ignorance about new
groups until the control message arrived out of the blue.

I just hope we don't miss useful insights on group formation and
direction in exchange for this amount of savings.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)