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 fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!fortune!mats
From: mats@fortune.UUCP (Mats Wichmann)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: renaming and moderated newsgroups
Message-ID: <5869@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 14:38:31 EST
Article-I.D.: fortune.5869
Posted: Wed Feb 12 14:38:31 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Feb-86 01:10:28 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 36

Two topics:

1. Selfishly, I maintain I don't care if a newsgroup I don't read
   is renamed or not. However, the volume of crap relating to this
   topic is excessive - I just plowed through net.news.group
   after not looking at it for a while; 86 messages, of which all
   but 10 were followups ad infinitum to the net.blownup wars.
   Most of the others were followups to "is net.sources beyond hope".
   I appreciate that the shuttle disaster stirred a lot of sentiment,
   but can somebody please come up with a way to avoid posting
   48 zillion short messages saying basically either "yes", "no",
   or "so and so said such and such supporting [yes,no] and he
   is full of it". What are required are so-called "escalation
   procedures", even though I am in general against regulating
   the net submissions. Try something like this:

   I   joe@slugs decides that it would be nice if net.toenail were
       renamed net.toejam. He mails a letter to spaf (who I am
       sure would serve as a willing victim for this), indicating
       the proposed change.

   II  spaf posts a note reporting the suggestion, calling for a
       MODERATED discussion, if discussion seems warranted

   III After some amount of discussion, a call to vote (by mail)
       is made

   IV  Voting is tabulated and the results reported.

Oh, forget it, it would never work.

[ This got too long; second topic in next letter ]

    Mats Wichmann
    Fortune Systems
    {ihnp4,hplabs,dual}!fortune!mats