Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sources.apple2
Keywords: new newsgroup for Apple // sources
Message-ID: <Jul.6.17.40.20.1990.8402@paul.rutgers.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 90 21:40:21 GMT
References: <Jun.30.22.54.49.1990.12254@paul.rutgers.edu> <1990Jul6.175711.26223@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 18

rck@george.CES.CWRU.Edu (Robert Knauerhase)
> Recent history has shown that apple-related groups
> can indeed fail the 100-yes-votes criterion, which both vetoes the group
> and casts a bad light on the Apple II UseNET community.

I seriously doubt if anybody remembers the comp.sys.apple2.tech vote or
suddenly decided that the Apple II USENET community is a bunch of bozos.

> Additionally, does anyone know what overhead there is in adding a group?

Relatively little.  A newgroup message goes out and the group gets created.
Some sites have their software configured such that newgroup and rmgroup
messages have to be dealt with manually.


Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac