Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!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: <484@flatline.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 89 08:16:54 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>
Reply-To: erict@flatline.UUCP (J. Eric Townsend)
Organization: Cold Lampin With Flav'
Lines: 24

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. 

Yeah, I remember this idea being tossed around.  I liked it then, and
I like it now.  I'm simply tired of long-winded creation battles 
based on quoting guidelines as rules for groups that really have a
limited intrest.  You want soc.culture.arabic.quoran.athiests.punishment?
Fine.  Make it work under tmp.whatever.  Just don't waste my time
having arguments about how/how not to create the group, why it's needed,
and how the "other side" keeps breaking the "rules".



-- 
J. Eric Townsend | "Enter, oh seeker of knowledge... That's *YOU*, fathead!"
 uunet!sugar!flatline!erict 
bellcore!texbell!/            511 Parker #2    |EastEnders Mailing List:
Inet: cosc5fa@george.uh.edu   Houston,Tx,77007 |eastender@flatline.UUCP