Xref: utzoo news.groups:8936 misc.headlines:7864 sci.misc:3522 sci.physics:7220 sci.space.shuttle:2870
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!aero!venera.isi.edu!uci-ics!ucla-cs!cc1
From: cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It eats Volcano Burgers)
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.headlines,sci.misc,sci.physics,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Fusion newgroup proposal
Keywords: New newsgroup, alt.fusion, sci.physics.fusion
Message-ID: <22943@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 13 Apr 89 19:46:05 GMT
References: <910@zorch.UU.NET> <546@cvman.UUCP> <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> <781@jack.UUCP>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It eats Volcano Burgers)
Organization: Softly belching nimrods
Lines: 31

In article <781@jack.UUCP> steve@jack.UUCP (Steven Harrison) writes:
^In article <7877@pyr.gatech.EDU> steve%revolver@gatech.edu (Poppa Smurf):
^>I suggest an alternative name:  sci.physics.fusion
^>No mistaking the topic there!
^>Steve Fischer
^If there has not been a vote taken I think one should be called for.
^sci.physics.fusion sounds like a great place for the new nesgroup to be
^created.

I hope everyone remembers the procedure for creating a normal (non-alt)
newsgroup:

		1)	Two weeks of discussion

		2)	A vote lasting one month

		3) 	If the vote passes, the newsgroup is created


This would obviously create the newsgroup in six weeks at the earliest.
With a hot topic like cold fusion (heh), such a delay is undesired.

That's why alt.fusion was created--alt groups can be started very
easily, with few, if any, formal rules on creating them.

But I suppose, if anyone really wants to, they can start the procedures
for creating sci.physics.fusion.  However, due to the "faddishness"
(it's a hot topic now--but will it be in 5 months?), I urge you to
vote NO on sci.physics.fusion.

				--Ken