Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!emv From: emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Emergency Newsgroups (was: CfD: Interest Group Surveys ...) Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 90 16:42:29 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> <6317@ncar.ucar.edu> <1990Feb18.221529.7429@sq.sq.com> <98509@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@math.lsa.umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Lines: 26 In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 19 Feb 90 06:53:26 GMT In article <98509@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: Another example was comp.sys.next. When the NeXT was launched, this group was created right away without a vote. And it continues to be an active and viable top-100 group to this day. Not quite, Brad -- I did start taking votes for this one, but when there got to be over 200 of them and NeXT discussion showing up everywhere on the net I got tired of counting and just created it. A couple of hate-mail messages ensued but they quickly died away. (So did my interest in the NeXT, but that's another story). The name was right, the time was right, the interest was obvious -- no reason not to go ahead. The current newgroup procedure discriminates against the timely creation of obvious and sensible new groups at the expense of providing a means of reconciling bitter and irreconcilable political differences. The whole voting process is a needless waste of time. Much better results could be achieved (at least among some group hierarchies) by planning ahead for an orderly newsgroup growth process. There's got to be a better way than the current procedure, which can result in long delays and needless battling over what are really relatively simple questions (is there interest? is there information? is there a good name?). --Ed