🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.1962a528c2a5570b989e04@corp.supernews.com>,
 Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

> 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
>    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
>    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
>    else.

In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
for group name-change proposals.

> 2) ba.internet is a relatively high-traffic group, such decisions
>    as removal of such a group should not be taken lightly.

Far more practical would be to form the other groups and see if the 
traffic migrates. However, I see no compelling reason to form those new 
groups.

> 3) Personally while I can see some rationalization for the change,
>    I'm afraid that the fragmentation of the group from 1 to 3
>    will reduce the quantity of posting into any particular group
>    to a point below "critical mass" and result in a die-off of
>    activity and participation.

Or, there will just end up being a lot of cross-posting, making the same 
traffic just that much more cumbersome.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407