Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.news.group
Subject: Re: Comments on Reorganization
Message-ID: <15830@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 05:01:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15830
Posted: Fri Sep 26 05:01:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 20:46:33 EDT
References: <4558@gatech.CSNET> <158@rayssd.UUCP> <923@gilbbs.UUCP> <230@hao.UUCP> <15777@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <237@hao.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 51
Xref: mnetor net.news:2055 net.news.group:3498

In article <237@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>> Could you explain how the reorganization will make it
>> easier to create, delete, and rename groups?  
>
>  Well, it obviously won't eliminate all the problems associated with this
>process, but what it will do is eliminate a lot of the fighting about *where*
>a group belongs, and whether or not a group exists that could handle
>discussions that might go into the proposed new group.

   In the example that we have seen so far, there is a vast *increase* in
the fighting over where newsgroups go.  Before it was clear where a group
about foo would go -- in net.foo, or possibly net.bar.foo if it falls into
an already existing category.  Now there is endless debate over talk vs.
soc vs. sci vs. ....

>Since it will also be much easier for sites that are concerned about
>resource use to control what groups they get (without 50-line sys file
>entries), there may well be fewer objections to creating new groups.

   So "creating" a group (giving it a name, and making it possible for
people to post to it) might possibly be somewhat easier (although it
couldn't be much easier than it is now; all that is needed is to send a
newgroup control message).  Actually *creating* a group (providing the
means for net readers to communicate on the subject), however, seems
probably more difficult, since it will be easier for an individual key
node to refuse to carry the group, thus making it worthless.

>Because there is a "misc" group in every category, it will be easier
>to delete groups because no one will be able to complain that there is
>now nowhere to post the discussions that formerly took place in the
>deleted group. [... H]opefully the second phase of reorganization
>(after the renaming of groups) will involve the setting of better-
>defined criteria for whether a new group should be created, and for
>the first time, setting criteria for deleting existing groups.

   I have no doubt that it will make it easier to *delete* groups.  We
have already seen much evidence of its utility in that regard.  I am
more interested in how it will make it easier to create and rename groups.
It seems that it could hardly be easier than it was before the great
reorganization -- after all, before that there was no need for renaming,
since all group names were treated equally.

   I do appreciate your prompt reply, but there doesn't seem to be anything
in the above to indicate that it will be easier to create or rename than
it now is.  And, the great opposition to the instances of renaming that
*have* come up, in cases where few really question that the groups *are*
misnamed (e.g. politics.arms-d), seems to indicate that renaming will be
extremely difficult.  Can you give any reason why we should believe the
opposite, or even why we should hold out hope?

   -- David desJardins