Xref: utzoo news.groups:8362 news.admin:5236
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!yale!Ram-Ashwin
From: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Message-ID: <54708@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 89 16:32:19 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <3088@alembic.UUCP>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram)
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 37
In-reply-to: csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack)

In article <3088@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
> In article <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
> > 
> >	RULES FOR DELETING A USENET GROUP
> >
> >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. [...]
> 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 [...]

I'm not sure I like this.  There are a few serious low-volume newsgroups that it
would be a shame to delete purely on the basis of "inadequate" volume (e.g.,
some of the bionet newsgroups; the t-discussion list would fall into this
category if it were gatewayed to a newsgroup; etc.)  These newsgroups are
useful, and their low volume makes them all the more manageable.  (Now for talk
or soc newsgroups the volume requirement makes sense :-)).

I'm also not convinced that "100 more keep than delete votes to save the group"
is a good idea, since the default here seems to be that the group would be
deleted unless its readers band together to save it.  If this is to be the
default, shouldn't there be some requirement for initiating a call to delete a
group in the first place?  It seems unreasonable that anyone could "threaten" an
existing group merely by posting a call for its deletion, forcing its readers to
start sending in "keep" votes.

Having said this, I agree that there should be a way to judge lack of interest
in a particular newsgroup, based on volume and readership among other things.
However, either of these criteria by itself doesn't seem to be sufficient by
itself.

-- Ashwin.