Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Message-ID: <3052@looking.UUCP>
Date: 6 Apr 89 02:10:54 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <445@flatline.UUCP> <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <4833@inco.UUCP> <297@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <4862@inco.UUCP>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 29

One of the major good points of the UNLAB proposal that has not
gotten much attention was one of the first sentences in the proposal.

This was:

	If UNLAB is unanimous (or say, 80%) in favour of the group at first
	examination, it gets created.  End of story.

To my mind, no matter what happens on the groups that don't have an 80%
approval, we get a complete elmination of mess and needless debate and
voting on a large number of groups.

One can't say for sure, but I would venture at least 50% of reasonable
group proposals would make it that way.

Whether UNLAB is 5 or 11 or 21 (about the maximum workable if you ask me)
that's got to be worth something.

Remember, since UNLAB would have the ability to suggest rmgroup of a
newly created group, mistakes could be easily corrected.  If sci.physics.fusion
died down in 3 months, it could easily be eliminated.

-----------

Note that while a policy for rmgroup is not strictly needed, create/rmgroup
is currently the only means available for renaming groups.  If you can't
rmgroup, then you can't rename or correct naming mistakes.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473