🚀 go-pugleaf

Una Smith (smith-una@yale.edu) wrote:
> 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.

Amen.

> 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.

How can people who have already made the effort to establish a mailing
list and maintain it (much more work than I ever imagined) be considered
lazy?

> Valid reasons for going the bit.* route include:

I want to create a gateway for my mailing list for one simple reason.
When I lose a subscriber, their explanation is always the same: too much
mail in my mail box . . . gateway to network news.

I STILL must maintain the mailing list.  Several of my subscribers do not
have access to network news.

> 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.

Sites don't need to keep the whole bit.* hierarchy anyway; they can
store only the specific groups in the hierarchy that they want.

> 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.

I really don't think the subject matter is the key.

The existence of an active mailing list that needs a "window" through
network news is the important factor.

Jeff

--
Please send your response via email.  Thanks.

 Jeff Bowyer                         EMail: jbowyer@cis.vutbr.cz
 Computing Center
 Technical University of Brno
 Czech Republic