Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!ginger.acc.com!anise!pst
From: pst@anise.acc.com (Paul Traina)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: modification of newgroup charter (mandetory .misc usage)
Message-ID: <1989Oct13.004003.5418@ginger.acc.com>
Date: 13 Oct 89 00:40:03 GMT
Sender: news@ginger.acc.com (USENET News System)
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Lines: 18

If this has been proposed before, I appologise for beating a dead horse.

I'd like to propose a new step be added to the newgroup creation procedure.
I feel that a proposed group should spend at *least* 90 days as a discussion
thread in the proper top level .misc group of the proposed name (yes, that
means the sci.aquaria people get to post in sci.misc, not rec.pets.misc...
we can be purests during that time).

If there is not enough interest warranted to maintain a steady worthwhile
thread in the group for that period of time,  the group isn't worth creating.

That's the idea,  you may feel free to hash out the details of "what is a
worthwhile thread".  It at least should point out the groups that deserve
to clearly fail (and I don't mean rec.pets.fish, I do mean groups looking
to start their own newsgroup when a mailing list is appropriate.)

People seem to forget that a news posting goes out to every damn USENET
site.  This is horrible wastage for low-readership groups.