Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: alt.config,rec.arts.sf-lovers
Subject: Creating alt.sf-lovers.books (was: Re: On what basis  ...)
Message-ID: <1473@aramis.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 03:30:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: aramis.1473
Posted: Thu Sep 10 03:30:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Sep-87 06:06:00 EDT
References: <1987Aug24.140756.8062@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <13890@amdahl.amdahl.com>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 52
Summary: sounds good to me.
Xref: mnetor alt.config:10 rec.arts.sf-lovers:6897
To: gam@amdahl.amdahl.com, pleasant@klinzhai.rutgers.edu, webber@aramis.rutgers.edu


In article <13890@amdahl.amdahl.com>, gam@amdahl.amdahl.com (Gordon A. Moffett) writes:
> ...
> Oh, let us not back ourselves into the corner that the other network
> did about how to creat newsgroups.
> 
> I think it should remain simple: a new newsgroup is created by Good
> Judgement as to what is needed.  I analogize creating newsgroups to
> creating directories: if they get used, great, if they don't they don't
> take up much space anyway.  What's wrong with that?

Sounds good to me.  From what I understand then, you are claiming that
allbery@ncoast's message was just a courtesy note to other admins
letting them know what was coming and finding out if there were any
objections that he was not already aware of.  Perfectly reasonable.
Since I am sure he already knows the grounds upon which I object,
there is no reason for consideration of them to delay him further in
the creation of the group.  I look forward to seeing just what kinds
of messages end up on his moderated sf-lover board.

Incidently, for those of you who don't read sf-lovers and hence don't
know the history behind allbery's request (yes both of you over there
in the back row trying to hide behind your newspapers), let me make
the following statement:

This particular episode began when someone (not me) proposed
rec.arts.sf-lovers.books as a place for the kind of discussion that
tends to get crossposted between rec.arts.books and
rec.arts.sf-lovers, but that gets lost among the rest of the
discussions that occur in both groups (and often tends to irritate the
non-sf-lovers (yeh you two)) in rec.arts.books.  The motivation was
quite reasonable although the discussion quickly degenerated into
accusations of snobbery from the people who don't focus their sf
interests around the printed literature.

I am not a news administrator at my site and hence can not properly create
the obviously required ``alt.sf-lovers.books'' (no moderator necessary).
The news administrator at my site appears to believe that the
news.groups procedure is necessary to create such groups.

Is there a news administrator that feels it would be proper to simply
send the creation messages for ``alt.sf-lovers.books'' and also thinks
that ``alt.sf-lovers.books'' is a sufficiently worthwhile group to
take the effort to actually create it????  If so, I would appreciate
hearing from you.

--- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)

p.s., Since a number of people other than me were interested in such a
group, the fact that I may or may not actually end up with access to
it on my local machines is not relevant to the request.  Indeed,
apparently nothing is relevant to the request except that some news
administrator things that it is a ``good idea''.