Xref: utzoo news.groups:3230 news.admin:1917 soc.singles:15310
Checksum: 54370
Lines: 71
Path: utzoo!sq!msb
From: msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader)
Date: Wed, 6-Apr-88 17:13:45 EDT
Message-ID: <1988Apr6.171345.3827@sq.uucp>
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Final action on soc.sex
References: <3720@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto

Gene Spafford (spaf@cs.purdue.EDU) writes:
> 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.

Normally speaking, when a new group is proposed and passes its vote,
it is routinely created by the backbone.  In view of this there is an
argument to the effect that abstentions in Spaf's vote show, if not
unconditional acceptance, at least probable tolerance of the proposed group.
As there are over 30 North American backbone sites, this means that the
majority of the sites that Spaf polled did abstain.

> 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.

I disagree.  Sex is legal in most states.  Recreational drugs mostly aren't.
There are people to whom this matters.

If I was a site admin, which I'm not, I would certainly carry soc.sex, and
would not carry alt.drugs -- unless my managers objected in either case.
The traffic on sex is already there in soc.singles, and I think it *is*
desireable to split it out.  This is why I voted yes on soc.sex.  Alt.sex
is not the right way to do this, if it will reach significantly fewer sites
than soc.singles will.

The creation of a mainstream newsgroup is the net's way of saying that this
topic does not belong in other groups.  The classic example is abortion.

	"Don't talk about abortion in soc.women.  If you post at all,
	 use talk.abortion.  Talk.abortion was created by net consensus
	 as the only place for discussions on this topic.  If your
	 site does not get talk.abortion, please respect this decision
	 by your management and don't post about the topic at all."

(My paraphrase-from-memory of text that I supplied for the netiquette document.)

There are other examples, like *.sf-lovers and *.drwho.  I claim that
if soc.sex existed, the above paragraph could be applied to soc.singles and
it; but with alt.sex not being an official newsgroup and not requiring any
particular creation criteria, the paragraph cannot be applied.

I would like to suggest that another vote be called.  This time the voters
should be asked to suggest alternate names that they would find acceptable.
Thus we might have votes "No", "Yes under any name", "Yes only if soc.sex",
"Yes only if soc.sex or soc.boink", "Yes but not soc.motos", etc.
(Personally, I like soc.boink.)

Admins of major sites who would NOT carry the vote if created, or who
might carry it depending on the name, would be asked to identify themselves
specifically as well as giving a personal vote if they want to.  (In other
words, I'd like to see a non-secret-ballot version of Spaf's poll.)

The last two paragraphs are in the form if suggestions and requests because
I'm not in a position to collect votes -- I'll be away for much of the
coming 30 days.  I hope someone else will volunteer to do so, by posting
to news.groups.  In the event of more than one volunteer, I suggest it be
settled as was done with the recent rec.arts.books.sf vote.

Followups have been directed to news.groups.

Mark Brader		"I conducted a Usenet poll ... on this subject ...
Toronto			 Laura is single.  By a 2-1 margin."  -- Ken Perlow
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com