Xref: utzoo news.groups:3172 news.admin:1891 soc.singles:15246
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!gatech!purdue!spaf
From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,soc.singles
Subject: Final action on soc.sex
Message-ID: <3720@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 88 23:19:44 GMT
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 43

About 6 weeks ago a proposal was circulated to create a group named
"soc.sex".  Ostensibly, the group was to channel discussions of a
sexual nature out of groups like soc.singles and rec.nude into
a newsgroup of their own.  The suggested charter, however, included
suggestions that bothered a number of site admins, as did the
suggested name.  A few postings were made detailing objections
and problems with the name and proposed content that were never
really adequately addressed; the vote was taken despite this.

The vote was in favor, but with considerable dissention, both in the
form votes and posted objections.  A number of site admins publicly
stated they would not carry the group on their machines, either under
the name "soc.sex" or any other name.  There are still unanswered
objections based on corporate and legal responsibilities, as well
as issues of taste.

I took a poll of the backbone admins to see how many would carry it
if it were created.  This was not done as a form of "veto power,"
but to determine from a fair-size sample if the group had a chance
of reasonable propagation....it seems silly for me to list a 
group in the list of net-wide groups if a significant majority of
major sites refuse to carry it.

Results: 11 US & Canadian sites will not carry it, 2 will, 2 might or
might not depending on name; the rest did not respond.  The Australian
and European sites will not get the group.

Therefore, I will not list soc.sex as a group in the list of active
groups.  That list is intended to reflect groups with wide-spread
propagation and support -- a soc.sex group would not qualify.  If
somebody else decides to create the group, I will not "rmgroup" it
(although other site admins may -- the net is an anarchy, right?), but
it should be noted that there probably will be very limited propagation
as news admins either reject the group from their sites or alias it
into "junk".  Creating it as an "alt" group is a better solution for
on-going existence and propagation.  In many ways, the group would
resemble alt.drugs and alt.flame in nature and in the kinds of
opposition that make it undesireable as a "regular" newsgroup.
-- 
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	uucp:	...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf