Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!oliveb!jerry
From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: creation of new news groups
Message-ID: <346@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-May-84 18:01:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.346
Posted: Mon May 14 18:01:23 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 07:56:34 EDT
Organization: Olivetti ATC, Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 19

A large portion of the articles in this group seem to be the justification
for/against the creation of news groups.  The discussion concerning
the creation of net.music.clasical is an example.  Several articles
have been written concerning the requirements for creating a new group.
Let us for a moment disregard the people who will vote against
anything new (and the people who will vote for anything new).

I wonder how people feel about the creation of a sub-group verses a
new group.  For example net.polls vs. net.music.clasical.  One of
the big arguments I have heard against having too many groups is
complexity.  It seems to me that a sub-group adds less to complexity
than a new top-level group.  Where would net.micro be without a
subdivision for each processor?

Should there be different "requirements" for a sub-group than a
top-level group?

					    Jerry Aguirre
    {hplabs|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry