Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!cuae2!heiby
From: heiby@cuae2.UUCP (Ron Heiby)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Comments on Reorganization
Message-ID: <2404@cuae2.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 18:10:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: cuae2.2404
Posted: Wed Sep 24 18:10:08 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 03:09:34 EDT
References: <4558@gatech.CSNET> <158@rayssd.UUCP> <923@gilbbs.UUCP> <230@hao.UUCP> <1031@gilbbs.UUCP>
Sender: heiby@cuae2.UUCP
Reply-To: heiby@cuae2.UUCP (-Ron Heiby)
Organization: AT&T - /app/eng, Lisle, IL
Lines: 43
Xref: mnetor net.news:2052 net.news.group:3494

In article <1031@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes:
>   Mistake?  Saving net.singles, while moving obviously technical groups into
> the talk.* domain is a *MISTAKE*???  [obnoxious flames deleted]
>
>   I suggest that you in no way represent the opinions or positions of the 
>majority of the backbone SAs.  I suggest that you are pretty much a singleton,
> [obnoxious flames deleted]
>
>   I would like to hear from the rest of the backbone SAs, and a lot less from
>you, sir.  You have certainly had more than ample say in this matter.  Why not
>let someone else speak to the issues?

Golly!  Tom sure seems upset about something.  I came in a bit late on all
this, haveing been sent to New Jersey for a week.  Tom seems to be pretty
confused, or I am.  I'm really curious about which talk groups are
"obviously technical".  None of them are "obviously technical" to me.
abortion?  bizarre?  origins?  politics?  religion?  rumors?  philosophy?
I don't understand where you're coming from, Tom.

Since I came in late, I can't really comment on whether what Greg said in
some earlier article represented my opinions, but his later messages
coincide with my own.  I was at the meetings held during Usenix when the
(evil, nasty) backbone (cabal) administrators got together and decided on
a few things that we honestly believed necessary for the continued life
of Usenet.  One of those things was the newsgroup reorganization.  One
of the guiding principles of the reorganization was that every existing
group would have a home in the new structure.  For each group in "net",
one would be able to point to some new group as being the place where
the "net" group's postings should begin to appear.  Eliminating wobegone
was a *mistake*.  I listen to PHC.  I enjoy it.  The handful of articles
a week in that group don't bother me particularly, although I do think
they probably could live with some other folk-music group, perhaps.
(But I don't want to argue about that, because I am not actively seeking
the demise of the wobegone group and most other backbone SAs aren't, either.)

So, please, people.  Calm down a bit and assume that we are trying to
save Usenet, rather than destroy it.  Please assume that we are not
power hungry dictators doing things on whims.  99% of the time you'll
be correct.
-- 
Ron Heiby heiby@cuae2.ATT.COM   Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.os.unix
AT&T-IS, /app/eng, Lisle, IL	(312) 810-6109
"Hay una mujer desaparecida...."