Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Against the fall of net.internat
Message-ID: <1818@hao.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 00:24:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1818
Posted: Thu Oct 24 00:24:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 04:31:46 EDT
References: <1149@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 54

> I was shocked to read in net.internat that it was to be closed to US
> readership without a discussion in the group because (1) most of the
> submitted articles originate in Europe and (2) it's creation did not
> follow the proper creation rules.

   As far as *I* have heard, the only reason it is being removed is 2). No
one said ANYTHING about where articles originate or what they contain.

> I have been reading it, and I'm sure many other people
> outside of Europe have been also.

  That does not change the fact that the proper procedure for newsgroup
creation was not followed. If we allow this group to go on WITHOUT going
through the proper procedure, then we will subject ourselves to endless
future debates on the worthiness of improperly-created groups, which is what
the rules were devised to PREVENT in the first place. Worthiness of the topic
is not mentioned ANYWHERE; the sole criteria for justifying a group is
DEMONSTRATED NEED based on volume of postings in related groups.

> As for the business of closing groups that are not properly formed,
> net.internat followed a mandate from the last EUUG conference in Copenhagen.
> Need I remind US readers that the EUUG is the sister
> organization to Usenix in the States?

  Big deal. USENIX meetings do not mandate the creation of new groups either.

> This is hardly a thoughtless,
> irresponsible basis from which to create a newsgroup.  If we could
> afford the time to debate newsgroup creations at UNIX conferences,
> it would be very nice - preferable to using net.news.group.
  
  I completely disagree. Not all of us get to attend UNIX conferences.

> The creator of net.internat was not familiar with the protocol for
> approving newsgroups with US distribution, but this is understandable
> since he is not from the States.

  That makes no difference. The group STILL was not created through the
proper procedure.

> I'm sure the smaller European USENET
> community have their own protocol for these things, or will soon - it
> would behoove us to be more tolerant of this kind of error.

  No, it wouldn't, or the next thing you know, everyone will be creating
groups for their own pet topics. This is what the rules were designed
to PREVENT.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY