Xref: utzoo news.groups:8571 news.admin:5331
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines
Message-ID: <2115@viscous.sco.COM>
Date: 28 Mar 89 19:17:07 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <3726@phri.UUCP>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.  (Scovert Operations)
Lines: 31

roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) said:
-
-	I pretty much agree with Greg Woods's proposed rules.  I only have
-one comment; I think the "100 more Yes than No" rule is not strong enough.
-I don't remember exactly when the 100 threshold was thought of, but I'm sure
-the net was 1/Nth the size it is today, where N is in the interval (2,5).

Actually, it was only a little over a year ago that the 100 threshold was
thought of.

It actually makes sense when you look at how many of the votes have gone.
The number of newsreaders and sites may be constantly increasing, but the
number of people who actually seem to be participating in the actual 
administration of the net (by discussing, voting, yelling about new groups)
is fairly constant.  Most news readers are sheep (lurkers) and don't care
about what new groups get created.  Or if they do, they don't say anything.
100 is still a good number.

Maybe 150 would be better for now, since it has more room for future 
expansion, but there's nothing wrong with the way the rules are now.  At 
least, not anything more wrong than any of the other suggestions that have 
been posted.

-- 
David Bedno (The Cat in the Hat), Reachable at:  davidbe@sco.COM  -OR-
.!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc}!sco!davidbe  -OR-  At home: 408-425-5266 
	 At work: 408-425-7222 x5123 (I'm probably here...)
Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.  Not by a long shot.

Performance is life.  Entertainment is death.  
					- World Entertainment War