Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.culture.uk
Message-ID: <3500002@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 10:18:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.3500002
Posted: Tue Sep  3 10:18:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 03:30:57 EDT
References: <819@lll-crg.UUCP>
Lines: 44
Nf-ID: #R:lll-crg.UUCP:-81900:ccvaxa:3500002:000:2159
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Sep  3 09:18:00 1985


> There is not enough interest amongst the tens (hundreds) of thousands
> of us on the net to warrant these little groups. ... Please don't
> clutter the net with another limited interest group.
----------
In what sense do these limited interest groups "clutter the net"?
Does your SA require that every user read every group?  Are you
incapable of resisting the urge to know everything that is going on
in every group?

It really doesn't bother me that there are dozens of groups I never
look at and it wouldn't bother me if some of them are used exclusively
by two people whose offices are down the hall from each other but
like to do their shouting in public.

I can see great virtue in having a place like net.news.group that
can host discussions of ideas for new groups so that we don't create
new groups for topics that would fit into existing groups and so that
we don't get five different amiga groups, all with slightly different
names.  But the idea that there should be someone who has to "approve"
creation of a new group, or that there should be some "official" number
of votes required strikes me as both ludicrous and sad.

The net IS an anarchy.  I think some kind of voluntary apporach to
information structuring is going to have to come along, but I don't
think that group-creation control is the problem.  I think the
long term answer is going to be moderation of groups: there may
be several groups in one topic, each with a different editor.  The
editor is a role with a long and distinguished history and I think
it will eventually be the model for the net: there will be widely
read groups with editors people trust to do the winnowing for them
and there will be hordes of groups with very tightly defined topics
or very narrow ciculation.

But that's not going to happen for a while.  In the meantime, I don't
see what difference it makes if somebody creates groups without
getting "permission;" if nobody else reads or posts to them they
won't cost us anything for transmission or storage and if people DO
read and post to them, then they were warranted to begin with.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece