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"))