Xref: utzoo news.admin:14945 news.groups:32664 comp.groupware:595
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.groupware
Subject: Re: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed)
Keywords: group creation votes preference
Message-ID: <1991Jun05.052142.27604@looking.on.ca>
Date: 5 Jun 91 05:21:42 GMT
References: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991May31.022710.11297@looking.on.ca> <1991Jun3.183039.12660@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991Jun04.013913.4916@looking.on.ca> <1991Jun4.170128.26382@gorm.ruc.dk>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 49

In article <1991Jun4.170128.26382@gorm.ruc.dk> david@gorm.ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) writes:
>brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>>a) The most important thing about a namespace is that it be consistent.
>
>Not self evident. Are we not talking about groups of people discussing 
>various topics? The question then becomes a totally different one.

Quite simply, what is the purpose of a newsgroup name?  These are the
main ones:

a) It identifies the group to outsiders, helps them find it and tells them
something about what might be discussed within it.

b) To insiders, to a slight degree, it provides a very terse definition
of the type of discussion that will go on within the group.

c) The hierarchy part affects default propagation at some sites.  This is not
so much a purpose any more as a consequence.  It used to be a purpose, in
in some hierarchies, like "talk" it perhaps still is.

For (a), consistency is very important.   You can't tell one group from
another or search through the names if there is no rhyme or reason to
the naming system.   It is more important that the name fit an understandable
system than that it be perfect for (b).    The importance of (b) gets
overstated.  The people and discussion there affect the character more
than anything.

Many people are unaware of this, as we often get proposals for group names
that are nothing but acronyms known only to the initiates.   An acronym
unknown to outsiders is a bad name.  The insiders already know what the
group is about.   There is little need to shorten the name as you almost
never type it.

(c) is a problem.  This was an original purpose, but the purpose has grown
less important and more the subject of argument.   Fewer and fewer sites
subscribe strictly at the hierarchy level these days, and tools are available
to avoid the need for this at all at any feed-cost-conscious site.


>If people can not stack up the names in their preferred order they should
>let their betters select the name.
>People do not have to understand the system to participate effectively.

It is not a problem of participation.  It is a problem of endless argument.
There is already too much argument over the technicalities of the rather
simple existing semi-formalism.   To complicate the rules invites more chaos.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473