🚀 go-pugleaf

Since the bit.* hierarchy isn't part of Usenet proper, it isn't necessary
to wait a month and then conduct a formal vote, is it?   There have been
no dissenting voices on the issue of whether to create more natural
newsgroup hierarchies.  So why not just do it, starting now, with any new
gateway proposals?  Retroactive re-organization can be done bit by bit,
as the groups themselves decide to organize themselves.

However, I think if we go ahead and do this, mainstream Usenetters will
object that the bit.listserv.* hierarchy is already a place where lazy
people can go to get around the not unreasonable Usenet group creation
procedures, and now we're proposing to make it even more attractive to
such people.  There is no question that this is a very real attraction 
for people who propose gateways.  Most gateway proposers are not "lazy",
but rather extremely busy (as administrators of mailing lists, if for
no other reason) and uncertain about the chance of passing a Usenet vote.

Frankly, I think it may be time for some sort of procedure with respect
to whether a gateway proposal should be accepted in the bit.* hierarchy,
or should be directed to the appropriate Usenet hierarchy.  This need not
be a voting procedure, merely a discussion.

Valid reasons for going the bit.* route include:

	The mailing list subscribers are concerned that a gateway into
	mainstream Usenet will be bad for the group.

	A few mailing list subscribers demand access to the list via Usenet
	readers, but aren't prepared/able to configure their local news
	programs to accept mailing lists.

	No existing Usenet newsgroup that would make a satisfactory home
	for the proposed gateway.

None of these are particularly good reasons, and I think their validity 
will only decrease.  It was for all of the above reasons that the ECOLOG-L
list was gated as bit.listserv.ecolog-l, rather than in the sci.bio 
hierarchy.  I proposed the gateway for this list, and because none of the
reasons for placing the gateway in bit.listserv.* are compelling, I am now
conducting a formal Usenet proposal to move the gateway into Usenet proper. 
The more this happens, the easier it becomes to do it all in one step.

One excellent reason remains:

	The mailing list is highly specialized and of interest to very few
	people who are widely dispersed but tend to occur in clumps, such
	as specific academic departments in scattered universities. 

Such mailing lists may well benefit from distribution via Usenet, but it
is neither appropriate nor necessary that most Usenet sites get these
groups, thus the bit.* hierarchy can serve as an academic hierarchy. 
In this sense, many LISTSERV (and other) mailing lists such as student 
groups, cultural groups, and computer-related groups all belong in 
mainstream Usenet hierarchies, but topics such as Medieval texts may
well fit best in the bit.* hierarchy.

Comments?

-- 

      Una Smith      Biology Department       smith-una@yale.edu
                     Yale University
                     New Haven, CT  06511