Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site gatech.CSNET
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!gatech!spaf
From: spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Demise of net.general
Message-ID: <698@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 15:49:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.698
Posted: Tue Jul 30 15:49:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 05:33:09 EDT
References: <755@abnji.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.news.group
Organization: The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech
Lines: 69
Xref: linus net.followup:4244 net.news.group:2705

Okay.  Let me try to either add some information, or fan some flames.
The posting by James Armstrong, Jr. about the creation of mod.general
has taken a number of people by surprise.  It certainly took me by
surprise.  I have received lots of letters and seen many articles
posted asking all the same questions, basically:

1) Who decided to remove net.general?  I think that was an assumption
made by Mr. Armstrong, and an erroneous conclusion (more on that
later).   James is currently serving as a moderator for two of the
"mod" groups, and he has been an active contributor to the net for some
time.  Beyond that, I don't know.

2) Why was it decided to remove net.general?  There has been a great
deal of talk over the past few years about removing net.general because
of all the bozos misusing the group.  The general conclusion seems to
have always been that we need some moderated group to serve the purpose
of net.general, but we shouldn't dispose of net.general since some
software depends on it.  Furthermore, many vociferous net types claim
that we need an outlet in case moderators overstep their bounds, and an
unmoderated net.general is the way.  Perhaps this proves their point.

3) When was it decided to create mod.general and who decided that?  I
believe the decision was made about 2 or 3 weeks ago.  I got mail (from
just whom, I forget) addressed to "moderators" saying that mod.general
and mod.newprod were going to be created.  I didn't really see any
discussion, either.  It should have been mentioned in net.news.group
for public comment, but wasn't.  There may have been some discussion in
the mail amongst some of the moderators, but if so, I missed it while
trying to get some work done on my thesis.  I doubt the need for
mod.general considering the existence of net.announce and net.misc, and
I also question the existence of mod.newprod, but that's just my
personal viewpoint.  Usually, the current moderators discuss creating
moderated newsgroups and then create them.  If they don't get used,
they get deleted.  If they do get used, the corresponding "net" groups
do not get deleted.  No one seems to have objected to this before, as
befits the status of "mod" groups as experimental.

4) Is net.general going to be deleted?  Gawd, I hope not!  I don't see
what harm it is to leave it there.  If it withers away and dies, fine,
then we can delete it.  If not, at least it serves a useful purpose as
we watch all the bozos post "for sale in NJ" articles to an
international distribution.  I enjoy sending mail to those people (why
do so many of them work for AT&T, by the way?).  If everybody sent
mail to each person who posts something innappropriate to net.general,
maybe we'd raise the general awareness of net users.  Naaaahhhhh....

5) What do we do next?  I dunno.  One thing you can do -- *DON'T WRITE
TO ME!*  No more letters!  I didn't do it!  If you are interested in
getting the story, write to Mr. Armstrong and ask him to post something
to the net explaining the situation.  I'm sure he's a reasonable and
intelligent human being operating under a mistaken impression.  DON'T
abuse him unnecessarily -- I'm sure he's already received enough of
that.  Just politely tell him that you don't want net.general to go
away.  You might also register your opinions on the creation of
"mod.general".  Then politely ask him to post something to both
net.followup and net.news.group explaining what happened.

In conclusion:  I am assuming a mistake has been made, probably
in good faith, but nonetheless a mistake.  I will not issue
any "rmgroup" messages for net.general, nor will I honor any such
request.  I will not remove net.general from the list of active
newsgroups until it appears that the proper procedures have been
followed and the vast majority of responsible netters want that
to happen.
-- 
Gene "4 months and counting" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet:	Spaf @ GATech		ARPA:	Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf