Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!nike!sri-spam!gds
From: gds@sri-spam.ARPA (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Suggestions for talk.* groups follows
Message-ID: <5806@sri-spam.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 16:28:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-spam.5806
Posted: Wed May 21 16:28:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 02:37:38 EDT
References: <5500@alice.uUCp>
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 78
Xref: linus net.news.group:4899 net.news.adm:689
Summary: Let each site do as they are able.

In article <5500@alice.uUCp>, jj@alice.UUCP writes:
> I'd like to propose an expanded list, based on my own experience
> with netnews.  To put it bluntly, anyone who wants to keep any of
> these groups should be able to explain WHY my company should
> pay for it, and so on.

Are you speaking for your company?  If not, then I suggest your position
be "anyone who wants to keep these groups should be able to explain why
my site should carry them ...".  If so, then I stand corrected.

I won't argue the merits of the obvious (by Brian Reid's statistics)
soapbox groups, but there are a few that I would like to comment on.

> net.books
> 	Perhaps it should be restricted to "work related" books?

Why, if it is not consuming too many resources, and the audience as a
whole becomes better read?

> net.college
> 	I've never understood the audience for this group.  If I'm
> wrong, somebody (politely) explain this to me.

I only read this part-time, but it seems that the audience is anyone who
is interested in what sorts of things are going on at colleges (this
could be academic, social, political ...).  I don't see this group as a
problem if it does not consume too many resources.  I would think
companies might even want to know what people think of certain college
environments, especially if they recruit from colleges.

> net.movies
> 	This is arguable.  I think it's much the same as "books"

Again, so long as it isn't consuming too many resources, I don't see the
problem.

> net.rec.*
> 	rec == recreation.  That says it all, if you're short on cash.

If you're not, then I fail to see the problem.

> net.sf-lovers
> 	As much as I like SF, it's hardly work related, and there's
> a lot of traffic.

Agreed.  However, there are a lot of computer professionals with strong
interests in sf.  I have yet to see a call for removal of sf-lovers from
the net -- from the looks of things most sites will continue to pay for
it.  Besides, by admitting your liking for sf, you have provided
justification for it, as long as you are willing to use the resources.

> net.startrek
> net.tv.*
> 	Gimmee a break.

See net.rec.  These are forms of recreation.

Now, for my comments on the conversion to talk.*:

I have always held, and will continue to do so, that it is up to
individual sites what they will and won't carry.  If they want to carry
the talk.* groups, fine, if not, fine, we'll just have to get them
elsewhere.  I will continue to carry talk.* groups as long as they do
not use too much of my resources, and I expect other sites will do
similarly (those who elect to carry talk.* groups).  So naturally, there
is no way I or anyone else could convince you to carry these groups, nor
is there a need to.  I really don't see the point of your posting -- you
are free to do what you want, and I imagine you will.  It seems as if
you are saying that netnews should carry technical work-related groups
only, but in reality you are saying that is the only thing you feel your
company (or site) should carry.

Others have made similar arguments against the various sources and micro
groups, that I won't repeat here.  Rather than fill net.news.* with
arguments for or against certain groups, individual sites should
just carry what they are able, and get what they can.

--gregbo