Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale
From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Old Group Deletion Procedures
Message-ID: <1989Oct3.202340.3109@rpi.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 89 20:23:40 GMT
References: <3137@ur-cc.UUCP> <1989Sep26.212755.8458@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<4492@ncar.ucar.edu> <22888@looking.on.ca>
	<1989Oct1.233028.7753@sq.sq.com>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 28
In-Reply-To: msb@sq.sq.com's message of 1 Oct 89 23:30:28 GMT

In <1989Oct1.233028.7753@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
Mark> Well, here's an example, I think.  Newsgroup decisions are supposed to
Mark> be by general consensus, not consensus of newsadmins.  So shouldn't this
Mark> discussion be in either news.groups or news.misc?

Not particularly.  Especially not news.misc, because it does have
either news.groups or news.admin as an appropriate home.  I don't
think it belongs in news.groups because a) that group is already busy
enough with discussion regarding proposals and b) because we are
talking about procedures, not certain groups getting the axe.

Final authority of what is received tends to rest with the news admin
at that machine.  (Meta-issues involving overlords of the admin can be
left out of the picture for now.)  Since the admin is the one who
really does all of the maintenance regarding USENET there it is quite
appropriate for admins to keep abreast of this discussion.  Then they
know what the whole story is when rmgroup messages might be arriving
for previously valid groups.  It is not especially necessary for an
admin to read news.groups any more; news.announce.newgroups should be
sufficient.

No one here is suggesting that proven useful groups come under fire;
it is really the dead ones that are the topic.  The administrative
issues are the primary thrust and it is quite appropriate here.

Dave
--
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))