Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!phri!gen-vote From: gen-vote@phri.UUCP (delete net.general) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: Let's delete net.general Message-ID: <2219@phri.UUCP> Date: Sun, 16-Feb-86 21:36:17 EST Article-I.D.: phri.2219 Posted: Sun Feb 16 21:36:17 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Feb-86 04:12:27 EST References: <2216@phri.UUCP> Reply-To: gen-vote@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY) Lines: 57 Summary: two arguments for *not* deleting net.general [Note: the following messages have been edited and reformatted for brevity. Elipsis in brackets indicate passages deleted by me. My comments are also enclosed in brackets and maked with my initials like this -- RHS] ---------------- From: cmcl2!seismo!munnari!mulga.oz!kerry (Kerry Raymond) Subject: keep net.general discussion Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Even if nothing appropriate is sent to net.general for months, I think it should be retained. After all it is the ONE newsgroup that everyone should be subscribed to (be nice if all the news programs enforced this). If the volume is low, it won't bother anyone. If the matter is important enough, everyone should read it. Asking "what is important enough" is a good question. A paranoid example might be some legislative change which threatens the very existence of Usenet, or some insanity like having to send in paperwork for every item posted, or new user added. The problem seems to lie in net.followup, perhaps it needs to be moderated. (Perhaps net.general needs to be moderated). I am not convinced that net.announce and net.news.adm are that well read in genuine user-community systems (i.e. no resident gurus). ---------------- From: mark@cbosgd.ATT.UUCP (Mark Horton) Subject: Re: Let's delete net.general Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus [This is a perfect example of a vote which clearly was intended as a "no" but will get counted as a "yes" because the author didn't follow the directions on how to format his message. Sorry Mark, but you should know better. I do *not* want mistakes like this to affect the vote; please read my previous two articles to make sure you are voting properly -- RHS] keep net.general The last time this came up, it was almost decided to delete it. But the kicker is this. There is a certain type of message that isn't important enough for net.annouce (in the opinion of the poster) that is still appropriate to net.general. (I recently went through 25 messages in net.general about about 25% of them fit into this category, in my opinion.) If we get rid of net.general, where does this traffic go? Perhaps the monthly policy posting should be softened a bit to indicate that net.general is for things of worldwide significance (as opposed to local things like the earring) that aren't important enough for net.announce. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016