🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1lgl0oINN661@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) writes:
> After reading the policy FAQ in bit.admin, I proposed a gate into a new
> group, sci.bio.ecology, and asked:
> 
> >>>4. Are there any objections to this proposal?
> 
> Richard H. Miller (rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu) wrote:
> 
> >: Yes, one major objection, you cannot create groups in the mainstream USENET
> >: simply by fiat. You must observe the guidelines for the creation of a new
> >: [group...]
> 
> I understand this.  My next step would have been to do just as you direct.

I understand but that was not clear from your initial article and the bit
hierarchy does issue new groups for its own group. I just wanted to make
sure nobody believed that they could create mainstream groups without observing
the 'proprieties'. For the record, I think your idea is a good one and the
way I would suggest anyone who wishes to do this in the future is to start 
with the USENET group creation guidelines and as part of the RFD, state that
the news group will gateway into a BITNET listserve. Then when (or if) the
group is created the gateway can be established.


-- 
Richard H. Miller                 Email: rick@bcm.tmc.edu
Asst. Dir. for Technical Support  Voice: (713)798-3532
Baylor College of Medicine        US Mail: One Baylor Plaza, 302H
                                           Houston, Texas 77030