Xref: utzoo news.groups:8396 news.admin:5252
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!inco!mack
From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Message-ID: <4799@inco.UUCP>
Date: 25 Mar 89 00:27:02 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <3088@alembic.UUCP> <54708@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: McDonnell Douglas-INCO, McLean, VA
Lines: 49

In article <54708@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) writes:
>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 :-)).

You deleted the last sentence in that paragraph. I said that the low volume
requirement had to be met before you could vote on removal, not that low
volume resulted in removal. 

>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.

Agreed. It should be 100 more delete than keep votes, not the other way
around, with at least 100 delete votes necessary. Or whatever.

>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.

Perhaps that is the function of the vote? Basically, we would be asking
for a vote of confidence in the group.

-- 
Dave Mack