Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken
Message-ID: <58888@looking.on.ca>
Date: 8 Dec 89 22:28:34 GMT
References: <623@banyan.UUCP> <11939@cbnews.ATT.COM> <56882@looking.on.ca> <10512@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 26
Class: discussion

In article <10512@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <56882@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>There is no discussion at all.  If we used trial newsgroups we could
>>rmgroup news.groups and never miss it.  No argument because there is
>>nothing to argue about.  That's the only way an anarchy can really work.
>>You can never have a working anarchy by "voting."
>
>Gee, I don't know, Brad, -- sci.aquaria was on trial for three years 
>and still there was a minor disagreement regarding it's creation as 
>I recall.

Sci.aquaria was not on trial, it was in alt.  It was not doing super
well in alt, at just over .56 readers/site, but that exceeds my proposal
for a creation requirement of .5/site.  So, under my proposal,
alt.aquaria could have become a netwide group without any discussion.

The choice of name is a somewhat orthoganal issue.  Ideally name and
distribution would be independent and this would not have been a problem.

But that aside, current schemes don't handle the name question and would
not have done any better.   My proposal is that a group of 1-3 people
pick the name as a service.  That would have solved the problem as long
as the people knew enough to ignore whiners.  You ignore the whiners on
the net and they go away soon enough.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473