Xref: utzoo news.groups:8344 news.admin:5228
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!inco!alembic!csu
From: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Message-ID: <3088@alembic.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 89 03:41:51 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Organization: Alembic Systems
Lines: 52

In article <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
[Rules for newsgroup creation - well-stated, no particular surprises.]
>
>	RULES FOR DELETING A USENET GROUP
>
>[Since there has obviously been no consensus ever reached on this, this
> statement cannot be construed as anything other than my personal opinion]

This should come as no surprise then.

>I propose that the procedure be the same as for group creation, with
>100 more keep than delete votes required to save the group, with the exception
>that all calls for votes and discussions MUST be cross-posted to both
>news.groups and the group in question. 

I think that demonstrated disinterest, indicated by "inadequate" volume,
should also be a component of this formula. Otherwise, it will be possible
to dismantle groups with high volume and a large readership on the basis
of a vote. This strikes me as a bad, bad idea. It would lead to newgroup-
rmgroup wars that would make anything in the past look like a tea party.

I suggest that a reasonable basis for newsgroup removal would be that
the group has had fewer than some threshhold number of articles per
month (5-10?) for the preceding three months, as measured at three
"hub" sites (say rutgers, uunet and decwrl?) The hub sites must, of
course, carry the group in question over the measurement period. This
requirement would have to be met before the removal vote could be taken.

>					This will obviously only work for
>unmoderated groups; I am open to discussion on procedures for deleting
>moderated groups, 

You need to deal with three options separately:

	1) forcibly switching moderators
	2) changing the group from moderated to unmoderated over
	   the objection of the current moderator
	3) removing the group altogether

And the discussion must be carried on where those most affected will
be sure to see it, in the moderated group. Obviously, this presents a
problem for many posters. One solution would be to have the Keeper of
the List (you, if you become the new Keeper) post a notice of the
discussion with an Approved: line in the moderated group, notifying
the readers of the nature of the discussion and advising the readers
to tune into news.groups for a while.

I look forward to the next installment in this saga.

-- 
Dave Mack
cannibal dancer