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.admin
Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Message-ID: <1361@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 89 23:26:27 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> <473@flatline.UUCP> <4870@inco.UUCP>
Sender: news@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu
Reply-To: charlie@mica.stat.washington.edu (Charlie Geyer)
Organization: UW Statistics, Seattle
Lines: 16
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:


In article <4870@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:

> I personally favor a "tmp" hierarchy. If you want a group created, say
> comp.soft-sys.andrew, get your nearest friendly admin to create a 
> group called "tmp.comp.soft-sys.andrew". If, after a few months,
> the group has a reasonable amount of traffic, conduct a vote on whether to
> move it into the comp hierarchy as comp.soft-sys.andrew, rename it,
> leave it in tmp or trash it entirely. People who don't want to participate
> in the experiment can ax the entire tmp hierarchy. 

A very good idea.  As it is now votes are silly.  People are voting for
or against what they *think* the new group will be like.  They don't know
and probably aren't even close in what they imagine.

If a whole tmp.* hierarchy is too much, how about one group: news.tryout?