🚀 go-pugleaf

A somewhat distorted viewpoint of the story of the creation of va.config 
(and va.forsale), but I encourage you to lend your support to this guy's 
request for a re-discussion of its re-creation.  Follow-ups to va.general 
and va.config, of all places.

In article <4iaenp$458@solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
Ron Jarrell <jarrell@solaris.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>This is a request for discussion on the issue of whether it would be a
>good idea to adjust va to look more like many of the other hierarchies,
>and create a va.config newsgroup.
>
>The proposed charter would be:
>
>--------------
>
>va.config is intended for meta-discussion about the va hierarchy
>itself; primarily adding, deleting, and reorganizing va.* newsgroups,
>including collecting opinions on the advisability of creating a new
>newsgroup, and for focusing the discussion of those concepts.  While
>discussion of the need for a new newsgroup could be started in an
>existing group, primary discussion would need to be focused here, in
>va.config.
>
>If a substantial number of readers feel the change is in order, one
>of the va hierarchy maintainers will execute the control message after
>a suitable period for discussion has elapsed.
>
>-------------
>
>
>NOTE:  This would change the existing hiearchy rules, which require
>discussion in va.general so that the discussion would be required in
>va.config.  This will hopefully cause less confusion than the current
>scenario, which while having decades-long standing, is no longer the
>status quo of usenet.
>
>Please do not be confused if your local server already has a va.config
>prior to this date;  it was created in error by people who did not 
>understand the existing rules, which serves to underline the apparent
>confusion in the policy of the va hierarchy.