From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Thumper)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:30:44 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1993Jan26.130614.19816@husc3.harvard.edu> cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:

[Stuff about rec.arts.startrek.info deleted.]

>Just one suggestion: if there is currently no procedure for changing
>a group's charter, why not make one up?  If there's nothing in the
>rules expressely forbidding it, then why couldn't we just have a cfv
>on changing info's charter?  It might be a lot simpler than formally
>creating a new newsgroup, plus people might just find it simpler to have
>one moderated startrek newsgroup?

That's an interesting idea. In this case I think there would be a lot of
opposition to funnelling reviews through .info.

[Stuff about crossposting deleted]

>Some people
>say that we ought not to create newsgroup that is duplicated in its
>entirety on another newsgroup, but I say, why not create a precedent
>here if it is in out interest to do so?

Well, the prececent already exists. Everything in news.announce.newsgroups
is crossposted. I have no real problem with the idea either.

[Stuff about splitting .current (which doesn't belong here) deleted]

>Now, here's the point: I will vote for the creation of .reviews *if*
>people generally agree to get serious about splitting .current in some
>way after the .reviews group is created. 

Excuse me? If people generally agree?
If you like the reviews proposal, vote for it, if you don't, vote against
it. PERIOD. Any other group proposals are irrelevant to this discussion.
Especially in this case bacuse no other proposal exists!

>Indeed, when someone first pointed out that proposals to create .reviews
>and to split .current into ds9 and tng branches were *not* mutually
>exclusive, and I posted in support of this idea, the reaction of 
>many people was just that -- "How many groups does Trek need?"

And they were right. How many? I like the .reviews idea but I can live
without it. The existing groups are already abused by people too stupid or
lazy to edit a Newsgroups: line so why add more groups and create more
confusion?

>I say it needs however many as it needs. 

Then you aren't a very practical person.

>As the .reviews proposal
>stands, I like it, but only if people really adhere to the bit
>about it *not* being a substitute for splitting .reviews. 

There's nothing to adhere to. The .reviews proposal has nothing to do with
any future propsal that might seek to split up .current. That's just a
fact, not a negotiable point.

>I will
>look at the reaction to this 2nd rfd and this post, and if people
>seem to realize that the two proposals are *not* mutually exclusive
>and seem to indicate that they are serious about discussing ways to
>split .current, then I'll vote for it.  If I get reactions like the
>ones discussed above, then I won't, since I believe the most urgent
>problem we must deal with is the volume of traffic in .current.

That's a bizarre way to look at it but vote how you like. Any attempt to
divide rec.arts.startrek.* by show title will be vigorously opposed by me
but will have NO effect on how I vote on the .reviews group.

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business

                             "I don't think so, Tim."
                                      - Al