Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!flatline!erict
From: erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Message-ID: <462@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 3 Apr 89 20:00:24 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <445@flatline.UUCP> <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <4833@inco.UUCP> <3649@ficc.uu.net> <3130@alembic.UUCP>
Reply-To: erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend)
Organization: Cold Lampin With Flav'
Lines: 67

In article <3130@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>Wrong. It deprives the vast majority of the net of their voice in
>the issue of newsgroup creation. What is being proposed here is an

What voice?  What bills do they pay?  How are they responsible when
my spool disk goes blotto at 3am?  How are they helpful when
a site administrator gets flooded with requests to cancel an
obnoxious user's account?

I feel, actually, that the "vast majority of the net" has voice only
if they can talk to their local site admin, or if they are the local
site admin.

Unfounded guess:  A large portion of the regular participants of news.all
are site admins, or are in close contact with a site admin.  Perhaps a poll
is needed?

>It ignores the fact
>that many site admins, particularly at large sites with lots of
>users, administer news in their spare time out of the kindness of
>their black little hearts, and the last thing in the world they
>want (or can afford in terms of time) is to become members of the
>New Improved Distributed Backbone Cabal.


If they aren't participating in group formation/regulation now, they
probably won't when it goes to a mailing list or moderated newsgroup.
If they never participate, what difference does it make whether it's
a newsgroup or a mailing list?

>They let it get hashed out through the voting process and abide by
>that. I do not particularly want to waste my time arguing with one
>of the users at my site about whether or not we should create
>rec.arts.books.ayatollah. If they want it, let them propose it in
>news.groups and rec.arts.books, and if there is sufficient interest
>and consensus on the name, fine.

You don't have to.  Tell them to go bother some other site admin who
has the time.  If they want to propose comp.sys.cbm.geos, they can
go ask one of the comp.sys.cbm heavies to lobby a news admin or site
admin.  If there's a an actual need for the group (as opposed to
a few loudmouths wanting it), it'll probably get created.  What
needed groups *haven't* been created?  We have enough misc groups
to handle any of the irregular traffic that oddball subjects
generate.


>True, each site admin has the power to determine which groups are
>available at hir site, but how many really care whether or not
>rec.arts.books.ayatollah gets created or not? Let the people who
>do care about the issue, one way or the other, make the decision.

Here's the problem:  A lot of people that "care" about whether or not
various newsgroups exist are in no way responsible for the administration
of the net.  They're just J. Random Users at various sites.  All of
their "caring" doesn't do one whit of good when a site is down and
an admin has to get up at 0dark00 to go fix it.  Their "caring" often
becomes mindless name calling in news.all.  I'm trying to find a way
to make things more efficient.  My ideas are not perfect, nor are they
polished and ready to go.  I think they're better than what we're doing
now.

-- 
J. Eric Townsend |          Skate UNIX or die, segmented memory suckers!
 uunet!sugar!flatline!erict
bellcore!texbell!/            511 Parker #2    |EastEnders Mailing List:
Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu   Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP