Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Message-ID: <2765@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 89 17:07:29 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <445@flatline.UUCP> <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <4833@inco.UUCP> <3649@ficc.uu.net> <3130@alembic.UUCP> <462@flatline.UUCP> <4860@inco.UUCP>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 26

In article <4860@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>A lot of the argument over newsgroup creation seems to be based on the
>idea that controlling newsgroup creation reduces the amount of traffic
>on the net. I don't believe it.

   I don't either. As a major proponent of the "newsgroup creation should
be limited to groups that are really needed" side of the argument, I
can say that the only reason for wanting to limit the number of newsgroups
is NOT because there is a software limit and NOT to reduce the total
traffic on the net, but rather to ensure that what traffic there is
is organized in such a way that readers can easily find the groups they
do want to read and unsubscribe from topics they don't want to read, and
so that posters can easily find the appropriate group to post in. It is
my belief that the more newsgroups there are, the harder it will be to
accomplish this, and that is my SOLE reason for opposing the creation of
groups that have not previously demonstrated a need to exist. I am not
opposed to the creation of NEEDED groups; I am just opposed to the creation
of groups whose sole justification is that a small loud bunch think it would
be a neat topic to discuss on the net. That's what we have *.misc groups for,
and voting procedures for, to determine whether this is true or not.

--Greg

P.S. I will be posting a summary of the comments I have gotten on the proposed
newsgroup creation guidelines very shortly, now that the discussion has died
down somewhat.