Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!clarke
From: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: proposed destruction of net.bizarre
Message-ID: <1536@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-Oct-85 10:22:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.1536
Posted: Fri Oct 25 10:22:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 10:41:04 EDT
References: <384@cad.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 38
Summary: 

In article <384@cad.cs.cmu.edu> mjc@cad.cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes:
>From: mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu
>>Yes, there was a discussion in net.news.group, but I doubt if most of the
>>bizarre people participated.  [...]
>>WHY DIDN'T YOU CROSSPOST THE DELETION DISCUSSION TO NET.BIZARRE SO THAT
>>EVERYONE COULD PARTICIPATE???
>
>I don't have the old posts to back this up, but I think the initial message
>in that discussion was posted to net.bizarre as well....

Yes.  I don't usually read net.news.group, but I used to read net.bizarre
occasionally after turning my mind to mush by working too long in the
evening.  My current bout of net.new... reading began after a message appeared
in net.bizarre telling people it was about to vanish.  It should vanish, too.
There are better ways to harden a mushy mind.

About net.internat:  I read it during its short life, and agree that it should
be recreated after the proper discussion.  However -- speaking as one who
is a little overwhelmed (if you can be "a little" overwhelmed) by the number
of newsgroups, the volume in some of them, and the confusing names of others,
I do think that (1) a better name than net.internat could perhaps be found,
and (2) new groups should not spring up without following some sensible
protocol.  It's a pain checking out every new group with a vaguely interesting
sounding name, and I'd like to know that its creation has followed rational
discussion.  The current protocol for group creation sounds quite adequate
to me.  Indeed, I can't imagine any very different protocol that could work.
Clearly, any successful protocol must be independent of the content of the
proposed group, since such a large variety of people are to be served by the
net; clearly, also, there must be rules to prevent unthinking proliferation
of groups; clearly, also, all groups must follow the same rules.  I think 
that means net.internat has been treated correctly.

But let's see it recreated after a proper discussion.
of new groups that would seem, well, strange to 
-- 
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
              (416) 978-4058
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke