Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: magic numbers (Really: votes fo
Message-ID: <3220@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Sep-85 00:26:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.3220
Posted: Sat Sep  7 00:26:38 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 04:20:44 EDT
References: <494@klipper.UUCP> <3500003@ccvaxa>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach)
Organization: Uncle Chuqui's Lemming Farm
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <3500003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes:
>
>> Yes, but .... I agree, but .... What about our phone bills?
>----------
>If it has no traffic, it costs nothing in phone bills.  If it has
>traffic, it deserves to live.  The only valid criterion for existence
>of a group on this net is whether people will/do use it.

Actually, the only valid criterion for the existence of a group is if the
people paying the bills for the net accept (or at least tolerate) it. All
the other 'rules' in the world are meaningless if the checkbook snaps
shut.

>If we
>start trying to impose "worthiness" rules, whether by abdicating
>that authority to some individual or by accepting consensus decisions,
>we begin moving inevitably toward the sort of political decisions that
>will make the net untenable in any useful form.

Assuming the net isn't already untenable in any useful form. There have
always been worthiness rules, to tell the truth (or did you miss the
wonderful 'discussion' about the creation of net.motss a few years back?)
and as volume increases, 'worthiness' probably needs to be tightened.
-- 
Chuq Von Rospach nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA {decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui

An uninformed opinion is no opinion at all. If you dont know what you're
talking about, please try to do it quietly.