Newsgroups: news.misc
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A new idea for USENET?
Message-ID: <1990Feb5.224637.18524@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <5633@barn.COM>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 22:46:37 GMT

In article <5633@barn.COM> jsl@barn.COM (John Labovitz) writes:
>I think this trend of new hierachies is a good thing.  Given the
>usefulness and popularity of the news software, I see no reason why there
>couldn't be any number of "alternate" news hierarchies, each with their own
>subject, rules, and distribution.

Actually, there is a reason, if we're talking about widely-distributed
hierarchies:  the lengths of the lines in the sys files are already
getting ridiculous.  Carrying a new hierarchy requires explicit action
by every sysadmin who wants it, and generally means a few more bytes
in the sys-file line of every site he gives a full feed to.  This is
already a damn nuisance; with "any number" of further hierachies, it
will be an administrative nightmare.  We need to discourage this silly
empire-building and fold more of these "alternative" hierarchies into
the existing structure.  This may well require some changes in rules;
in particular, some sort of procedure for delegating name-space
management would eliminate a major reason why people think they just
*have* to have their own hierarchy.  (My opinion is that they are 
usually wrong, but it is perceived as a significant issue.)

>... when a new, non-USENET news hierarchy is
>added to the network, the USENET people scream that the new hierarchy is
>polluting their name space, conflicting with their rules, or just mentioning
>an uncool operating system.

Actually, the usual scream is "oh #@#@%$, not *another* pinhead who wants
his own little empire for some ridiculous reason!".  I've never heard
anyone complain about polluting the name space, conflicting with rules,
*or* mentioning an uncool operating system -- can you cite references?
(*Expanding* the namespace and *polluting* it are not the same thing.)

>   1. Put all existing true-USENET groups (comp, misc, news, rec, soc, sci,
>      and talk) under the top-level name "usenet."  This would separate
>      USENET from other hierarchies, reducing arguments, misunderstandings,
>      copyright violations, etc...

Again, please cite references and explain in detail how this would help
us a whole bunch.  I don't see *any* benefits to make up for the headaches
the transition would cause.  The existing setup doesn't confuse anyone
except the occasional beginner, who will just find different issues to
be confused about.  And what on Earth does this have to do with copyright
violations??

Frankly, suggesting that we bundle the existing Usenet hierarchies into
a super-hierarchy just because the occasional novice doesn't understand
that they are related strikes me as another case of Dewey Decimal Syndrome.
("We can't call it comp.unix.questions, that's not descriptive enough --
technology.computers.software.operatingsystems.posixcompliant.unix.questions
is what we need.")  If it's not broken, don't fix it.

>   2. Propose a recommended format for a news hierarchy...

Why?  The dominant feature of most of the "alternate" hierarchies is a
firm desire to run things *their* way, not ours.

>   4. Encourage the use and exchange of non-USENET hierarchies by compiling
>      a News Hierarchy Registry listing various details of each hierarchy,

As explained above, I'd say we want to *discourage* more silly growth at
the top level.  It serves no useful purpose and just creates problems.
Avoiding problems is better than solving them.
-- 
SVR4:  every feature you ever |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
wanted, and plenty you didn't.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu