Xref: utzoo news.groups:31864 trial.soc.culture.italian:180
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!news.iastate.edu!vancleef
From: vancleef@iastate.edu (Van Cleef Henry H)
Newsgroups: news.groups,trial.soc.culture.italian
Subject: Re: Call for discussion : soc.culture.italian
Message-ID: <1991May12.022921.13088@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 12 May 91 02:29:21 GMT
References: <1991May10.234209.29308@cs.ucla.edu> <1991May11.191809.5062@news.iastate.edu> <1991May11.210529.17071@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Lines: 43

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...
>
>>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

Nobody is "circumventing" anything.  Nobody is suggesting
"circumventing" anything. Nobody is "anxious."  Nobody wants to get into
the alt. fray.  The call for discussion has gone out.  I expect to see a
call for vote in a timely manner.  In the meantime, the trial group will
continue business as usual for those who have or who can obtain access
to it.  
-- 
Hank van Cleef  
vancleef@iastate.edu	Iowa State University, Ames. Ia.
tmn!vancleef		The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Oh.