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!cbosgd!hplabs!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proceedures, voting.. (long)
Message-ID: <1999@hao.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 03:58:27 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1999
Posted: Fri Mar 14 03:58:27 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 19:30:00 EST
References: <5075@alice.uUCp> <3326@sun.uucp> <1195@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <1989@hao.UUCP> <1256@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 62

> my previous article, I felt that *action* of rmgrouping net.internat
> was the proper thing to do

  I must confess that I did NOT get this impression at all from your postings
and mail. 

> It is the *method* I disagreed with

  In practice, how WAS he supposed to do it? Submitting it to the net
for a vote is tantamount to admitting it's existence; it's like giving
in to terrorism: it would only encourage MORE net.terrorism.

> Two wrongs don't make a right.

  No, but three lefts do! :-)

> I've decided that democratic procedure won't work for USENET, at least
> not until either (1) a far cheaper transport mechanism is used, or (2)
> all the sites share the cost of USENET (like in Europe).

   This has been my only objection all along. I have no desire to be
a dictator.

> I am somewhat concerned, though, that personal
> preferences may get in the way of sound economic judgment

  I agree. It will be important for the non-backbone users to point
out when they feel an abuse has occurred/is occurring. 

> individuals with the power make decisions which are beneficial to
> their personal tastes, as opposed to their space requirements, phone
> bills, etc. 

  I agree again. I hope no insinuations are being made that this has
already been done.

> This goes for newsgroup creation also -- an established
> need should be made for a group before it can become a net group

  I'm glad we agree on this, but the next question is: what do we
do if someone DOES create a group clearly not in accordance with
the established procedure? Do we have to then submit it to the net
and PROVE that it was created out of procedure, while the 'terrorists'
continue to post to it in the meantime, thus further entrenching the
'illegal' group into the fabric of the net? Where do we draw the line?

> Again, I mean no offense to anyone in particular -- I'm just trying in
> ways I know how to improve the net.  

  Understood. One of the good things about this net is that everyone
can express their viewpoint, no matter how 'unpopular'. 

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

"If the game is lost, we're all the same; no one left to place or take the 
blame; Will we leave this place an empty stone, or a shining ball of earth,
we can call our home"