Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bionet!apple!usc!skat.usc.edu!kriz From: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: SRH (soc.rights.human) is up, but with problems Message-ID: <19453@usc.edu> Date: 25 Aug 89 18:09:57 GMT References: <19391@usc.edu> <19433@usc.edu> <578@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <19448@usc.edu> <4121@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: news@usc.edu Reply-To: kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 31 If Greg Woods voiced his objection about the group name right after he saw the name ... then he was one of the two who did so. I think my point here still stands. At the time I did not realize that Greg Woods carried as much "clout" as he did, so I took the suggestion as "one of many" Again I got about 50 notes... 2 notes for a talk group wasn't exactly a mandate for change. There was more objection to the original proposed name: soc.human-rights So I changed it soc.rights.human, when it came time for the vote. All the while, I still maintain that NO ONE POSTED ANY SUGGESTION ON HOW TO NAME THIS GROUP DURING THE DISCUSSION SECTION. I just got suggestions from e-mail. Anyway, I respect Greg Wood's right not to have his machine subscribe to the group... I just regret that he was not able to create it, if it was so important that either he or Spaf do so. All I can say is that I tried to follow the procedure to the letter. And we still had a mess of it. That sentence about sending a message to "newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu" should be changed ... it should be made clear that it is up the the vote-taker to find someone on his own to create the group after a successful vote. But there is hope ... groups usually take time to be accepted. This like any other. Thus-far, SRH has been pretty mature. And so I'm optimistic :-) dennis