Xref: utzoo news.groups:31857 trial.soc.culture.italian:179
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!gold.cchem.berkeley.edu!marchi
From: marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu (Massimo Marchi)
Newsgroups: news.groups,trial.soc.culture.italian
Subject: Re: Call for discussion : soc.culture.italian
Message-ID: <1991May11.224628.9828@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 11 May 91 22:46:28 GMT
References: <1991May10.234209.29308@cs.ucla.edu> <1991May11.191809.5062@news.iastate.edu> <1991May11.210529.17071@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: Dept of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 49

In article <1991May11.210529.17071@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1991May11.191809.5062@news.iastate.edu>, 
>     vancleef@iastate.edu (Van Cleef Henry H) writes...
>
>>In article <1991May10.234209.29308@cs.ucla.edu> 
>     marino@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Fabio Marino) writes:
>
>>>I am hereby issuing a call for discussion on the creation of the
>>>newsgroup soc.culture.italian.  [...]
>
>[discussion of trial group deleted...]
>
>>The trial group presently carries a solid, though relatively small, core
>>of traffic, no doubt reflecting its narrow distribution base.  The value
>>of soc.culture.(european-countries) is already tested and proven, and
>>Italy is a major European country, socially, politically, economically,
>>and historically.  There is plenty of justification for creating such a
>>group without going through the vote process.  
>
>Yeah, but if you create a group that way, it either has to be an alt.*
>group (in which case some sites will not receive it), or it may be ignored.
>The efficacy of a soc.culture.italian is not in question, in my mind, 
>but if this group were to try to circumvent the Guidelines for New Group
>Creation, I, for one, would both vote and campaign against it.  
>
>Everybody else either plays according to the rules (in this case, the 
>Guidelines), or creates a trial group (as the original poster has done),
>or creates an alt. group.  You have to play by the rules too.  So there.
>
>>I support the call for discussion and believe that this should be moved 
>>into the voting process as quickly as possible.
>
>While the Guidelines do not call out a minimum length for a discussion
>period (only a maximum of 30 days), I don't think it's a good idea to 
>jump too fast into a vote, even if the proponents are getting anxious.
>Everybody else who goes through this waits a little while and goes through
>the process, and I'm certain this group can too.
>
>RG

I agree with You on the point we should go to a vote. I don't really
understand why it is not a good idea to jump too fast to a vote. Can You
enlighten us, please? After all a 5 month discussion is quite enough.

MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimo Marchi Lewis-112                         marchi@gold.cchem.berkeley.edu
University of California at Berkeley             marchi@UCBCMSA.bitnet
Berkeley, CA 94720