Xref: utzoo news.admin:6623 news.groups:11789 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!skat.usc.edu!kriz From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: SRH (soc.rights.human) is up, but with problems Message-ID: <19448@usc.edu> Date: 25 Aug 89 14:36:14 GMT References: <19391@usc.edu> <19433@usc.edu> <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> Sender: news@usc.edu Reply-To: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Followup-To: news.admin Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 50 In article <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> randall@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU (Randall Atkinson) writes: >In article <19433@usc.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes: >( other stuff was deleted here) >>In all this I obviously respect the right of system administrators to reject >>any group, but if the group does in fact pass, then it should at least be >>created. > >Greg Woods has no obligation to anyone to issue any newgroup just >as no system is obliged to carry any group. Greg Woods IS obligated to create the group if it says that to create the group one can send a message to that effect to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" If this is not the case, then strike that line from the guide that is posted on how to create a newsgroup. [And after this experience I strongly recommend that]. > >What is silly is that Dennis Kriz was told before the vote that >people wouldn't object to creating TALK.rights.human but objected >strenuously to creating SOC.rights.human and that now he is >surprised that many sites (apparently including some former "backbone" >sites) aren't carrying the group. > What is silly is that this objection was only voiced *after* I put the group up for a vote. I got some 50 letters during the discussion portion of the procedure for newsgroup creation. Only 2 mentioned that the group should be a "talk" group instead of a "soc" group. No one posted ANYTHING on news.groups concerning the group during the discussion at all ... 'cept me... ASKING PEOPLE TO POST THEIR SUGGESTIONS. Only when I put the group up for a vote, were there objections made. The vote did carry ... and by a large margin. Why "soc" and not "talk" ... The inspiration for SRH was SCC (soc.culture.china). There are a lot of people in the same predicament as the Chinese, and it seemed like a logical extention, one that could clearly be made by those who subscribe to SCC now. SCC also is carried world-wide, whereas "talk" groups tend to stay state-side. Do you know I got votes from as far as NEW ZEALAND, and SEVERAL from FINLAND for this group? This not to mention more from the UK. The honest thing would be to respect the choice made. I understand that this will take time. But I hope that it will ultimately take place. dennis