Xref: utzoo ont.general:530 tor.general:489
Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!david
From: david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes)
Newsgroups: ont.general,tor.general
Subject: Re: Local newsgroup proposals
Message-ID: <3198@geac.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 88 12:43:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: geac.3198
References: <320@telly.UUCP> <3191@geac.UUCP> <1988Sep2.175608.5257@sq.uucp>
Reply-To: david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes)
Distribution: ont
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organisation
Lines: 56

In article <1988Sep2.175608.5257@sq.uucp> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>
>> There seems to be a large body of folks who want to set up
>> news groups without showing the kind of volume that justifies the
>> setting up of a newsgroup. (remember ont.singles - what???) 
>> 
>> I think that we might want to have a policy about the setting up of a
>> new newsgroup. Maybe modelled after the US USENET policy.
>
>
>If there is a US USENET policy, I'm unaware of it.  I think the number
>of US-only groups on the net is negligible.  The policy described later
>in the above-quoted article is that for net-wide groups.

Bad wording on my part. Since the decision to carry a group is primarily
a function of getting the major US sites to agree, I called this the 
US USENET policy - you are right, it is the international USENET policy.

>Ont.singles was precisely such a creation ... there seemed to be likely
>to be going to be traffic, because net.singles (as it was then) was being
>cut off from Ontario.  Later I proposed it for deletion as part of a
>general clean-up of Ontario and Canadian groups, but there was sentiment
>to keep it, so it stayed.  I'm not subscribed to it now; if there is no
>traffic any more, someone should again propose it for removal.

And this is my point - I don't really think I want a number of artifacts
floating around the news system with a posting level of one article
every six months. (Usually saying, "Hey does this group still exist?")

I don't know about your users but mine get very flustered when they 
see "Bogus newsgroup: ont.singles, remove from .newsrc?" when they
kick in rn. If this happens with any real frequency (as it might in
the scenario above) this could become a major headache.

What is wrong with saying "Post somewhere else for a while and *show*
us you have the volume to create a new group?" ont.singles would never
had made it under those rules it had maybe 5 articles/week tops and
didn't maintain that for three months.

I also wonder how many folk are making a reasonable choice when asked
whether a newsgroups should be created *without* having seen any of
the content of the proposed newsgroup.

For example, I want to start a group about X windows. Quite a lot of people
say "yes, do it". So I say fine, and start it up. No one posts to it.
Everyone is waiting for someone else to post because they want to
*read* the group, not write to it (and admit their ignorance?).

>Mark Brader, Toronto	"Those who mourn for 'USENET like it was' should
>utzoo!sq!msb		 remember the original design estimates of maximum
>msb@sq.com 		 traffic volume: 2 articles/day" -- Steven Bellovin

-david-

----
David Haynes		(yunexus!murder!david)