Xref: utzoo news.admin:7693 news.groups:14833 comp.mail.uucp:3780 comp.os.vms:19805 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sci34hub!gary From: gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.mail.uucp,comp.os.vms Subject: Re: New newsgroup hierarchy Summary: If this is part of USENET, don't we get to vote on it? Message-ID: <409@sci34hub.UUCP> Date: 21 Nov 89 02:34:51 GMT References: <1618.25614348@mccall.uucp> <1989Nov17.174318.21963@world.std.com> Lines: 62 In article <1989Nov17.174318.21963@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > > From: wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) > >why not create/use > >comp.sources.vms for vmsnet.sources [ ..... ] > > ..... it's just that this seems to run > >counter to the way usenet has been run in the past. > Why not be opposed to the new hierarchy? You make a very valid point. > My gut feeling is that this is another one of those "news group as > status symbol" proposals. Actually, in this case, it's an entire news > hierarchy, big status symbol. My gut feeling is that somebody who already has the equivalent of most of this in place (in the comp groups) wants the 90% (guesstimate) of us who don't run VMS to support the 10% who do with a significant part of our resources. > Obviously no one can just stop them ..... Ever hear of the "rmgroup" command? I think that'll stop them from my site--considering that we have no DEC hardware in my division, I can't see supporting something that duplicates part of what I'm getting already. Further, this is USENET, not VMS-SUPPORTED-BY-REAL-OS-NET. We have guidlines about forming new newsgroups. We're all supposed to follow these guidelines, partly to operate in concensus--i.e., operate in a manner that is generally agreed upon by the net users and admins. This hierarchy was not voted upon by the net, much less any of the sub-groups in it. It won't be coming into this site for two real simple reasons: 1) It is not an "official" newsgroup, within one of the existing hierarchies, approved by the net as a whole. 2) I'm NOT going to edit it into my sys file. Stopped? Gee, whiz, I don't see anything coming in here to stop... A rogue newgroup message could come in, under one of the existing top-level groups, and I probably wouldn't care. A whole new hierarchy, however, requires my intervention before it'll be formed here, and that's not going to happen. If the initiators of this vmsnet thing are confident that it'd be voted in favor of, why wasn't it discussed and voted in properly? > I think this is grandstanding and just confuses things. Agreed. Very much so. What was that site name, again--I need to write a little script about it....something with an "rm" in it... > -Barry Shein > Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com > 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.