🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1tbn89INN7j9@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) writes:
>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.

Without objection, so ordered. New bit.** newsgroups will have names that
are more meaningful to their content and fall into general (but so far
undefined) hierarchies under bit.**.

People with existing groups can request that their names be changed and
this will be done as time permits.  The method used will be for the
owner to first post something to make sure everyone knows what's going
on.  This post should be cross posted to both the newsgroup being
changed and bit.admin.

If no significant objection is heard, a NEWGROUP control message will be
sent out for the new group. Two days later the gateway will be moved to
the new group. Two days after that a RMGROUP control message will be sent
out for the old group.

Does this sound like a reasonable way to go about it?

>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.

Exactly. The bit.** hierarchy exists only to mirror mailing lists.

>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.

The main reason I've seen for going bit.** now is:  "I want my group now
and I don't want to wait (for have to go through) the procedure to
establish a group in one of the traditional hierarchies."  The main
reason for going with a group in the traditional hierarchies is
propigation.

Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu)
The American University
Washington, DC USA 20016-8019