Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!mica!charlie
From: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Summary: NO votes shouldn't count
Message-ID: <1335@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 89 05:25:32 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <37740@bbn.COM> <27806@apple.Apple.COM> <5134@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 20
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Xref: utzoo news.groups:8440 news.admin:5272


In article <5134@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) 
writes:

> I further suggest that , for an existing
> group, the only legitimate reason to vote "no" is lack of namespace;
> the other three "valid" reasons I enumerated above should have been
> addressed when the group was created.  If lack of namespace is not
> a real problem for the bulk of the net, perhaps "no" votes could be
> disallowed.

I couldn't agree more.  If enough people want a group.  Let them have
it.  Otherwise they will just annoy everyone else by posting in 
inappropriate groups.  The only question is how many is enough?

Even lack of namespace is no reason to vote against a group.  If lack
of namespace is a problem there should be some absolute maximum on the
number of groups and as low volume groups get removed proposed new
groups have to compete for the available space.  But, is this really a
problem that can't be solved by sites just not carrying some groups?