🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46gpde$1gm@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, set@oryx.llnl.gov (Sam
Trenholme) wrote:

> >This proposal will NOT be allowed to come to a vote (ie. a CFV) unless you
> >go back to square one and begin again, this time following the published
> >procedures.  You can find those procedures in this newsgroup.  Look for
> >an article titled "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup".
> 
> I do not think that the creation of the comp.sys.be newsgroup sould be 
> delayed one week because of a simple typographical error. Considering the 
> volume of postings in comp.sys.powerpc and other newsgroups on the Be 
> computer, cluttering the newsgroup for people who do not wish to read 
> about the BeBox, I think a newsgroup should be formed as soon as 
> possible. I think the CFV should reflect the fact that a simple human 
> mistake was ade, but a mistake that, IMHO, should not delay the creation 
> of a comp.sys.be newsgroup.


Unfortunately, USENET being an amazingly well working *anarchy*,
railroading past the rules, even for an honest mistake, won't work. There
is no benevolent dictator to smile down and say "ok".

We should just wait it out, for the real comp.sys.be. This is much better
than an alt.be (which would be overrun by people who didn't know what it
stood for), and better than a dozen comp.sys.be.* groups, which might not
be justified. When c.s.b is overloaded, then a split will be justified,
and painless.

-pmb