HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: news.groups
Followup-to: news.groups

In article ... ianr@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Ian Rogers) writes an RFD for
comp.lang.pop. 

I support this. Pop is now over twenty-one years old, the mailing list is
becoming un-maintainable and a little too self-contained, and I find (when I
have occasion to use Pop as an example language in postings) that there is
nowhere convenient I can point readers for more details and conversations.

Opening Pop up with a newsgroup would have the dual benefit of allowing Net
readers greater access to this interesting language, and giving the Pop
community an additional source of (constructive, of course!) criticism.
--

Regards,    | "If taking devious pains was a sign of laziness, he was quite
Kers.       | prepared to call Hazelton the laziest man alive." Blish (m-o-l)
From: ruvan@clu.cf.ac.uk (Ruvan Weerasinghe)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.lang.pop
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:08:25 GMT
Organization: Computational Linguistics Unit, U of Wales - Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
X-Mailer: Cardiff Computing Maths PP Mail Open News Gateway


I didn't see the original announcement, but the need for comp.lang.pop
is almost overdue!

Ruvan
From: hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.diplomacy
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:09:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

What is the distribution of bit.listserv.dipl-l?  Despite its ugly name,
this is already a news group dedicated to diplomacy.  rec.games.diplomacy
would seem to be redundant.

-- 
"I can't believe I had the Anti!"
Howard_Ship@vos.stratus.com
From: afsidbb@cidsv07.Berkeley.EDU (Douglas Bender)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: MTB newsgroup,  lottsa interest !!
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:49:36 GMT
Reply-To: afsidbb@cidsv07.Berkeley.EDU (Douglas Bender)
Organization: Environment Canada


 I'm all for a rec.bicycles.mtb  news group. Since the recent split of rec.bicycles
I would like a single group where all MTB related postings can be read.

Douglas
-- 
       ______________________________________________________________
      /_____________________________________________________________/\
      \  "You're never alone with a schizophrenic ! " - Ian Hunter  \ \
       \_____________________________________________________________\/
   _______________________ \________\_\________________________________
  /  Douglas Bender      /\/  ___  /  Canadian Meteorological Center  /\
 /  Programmer/Analyst  / /  /\_/ /  dbender@cmc.aes.doe.ca _________/ /\
/______________________/ /  / // /  (514) 421-4649  _______/\ _______\///
\______________________\/  / // /__________________/\______\/        ///
/______________________/__/ //__\                  \/_______________///
\_________________________\/ \______________________________________\/
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu (Not A Random Name)
Subject: Re: 1st Call for Votes: misc.forsale computers reorg.
Keywords: CFV
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:18:00 GMT

newsnews@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (News Acct. 1) writes:

>A YES vote is a vote for the creation all of the nine new groups
>and the removal of the current misc.forsale.computers

Wait a minute, is that kosher?  I thought every group was voted on
individually.  Can you force a block vote?  Maybe I don't think printers
deserves it's own group?

>Remember the vote is ALL FOR or ALL AGAINST.  This is NOT a vote for each
>individual group; either ALL nine new groups are created and the existing
>removed or NO new groups are created and the existing group remains.

--
 _____________________________________________________________________
| kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu | The Coven BBS [303/777-2911] 1st METAL in MST |
| kreme@#22 (FV3 Net) | MST3K, Spacer Quest 3.4w, Anime files, & More |
| [303/722-2009] Vox  |          Unity Sleeps -- Neil Gaiman          |
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.communication.speech
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 20:56:39 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

alvin@netcom.com (Alvin H. White) writes:

> My opinion is that eventually the ANGLO-AMERICAN CATALOGING RULES II,
> i.e. second edition or later, will be a close approximation for a
> mapping of usenet topics.  We are not there yet.  

Doubt it!  AACR 2 doesn't specify a subject heading list.  And as somebody
who's often found himself elbow-deep in subject classification terms, the
idea of a Usenet subdivided by Library of Congress Subject Heading rules
gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies -- LCSH isn't even hierarchical!

(Bleat bleat. :-)

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

"shine your white light on me"
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.abstract (Re: rec.games.strategic controversy)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:19:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies

In article <5823@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <1992Aug26.172017.9025@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers):
>> Why are you so determined to keep everyone in rec.games.board?
>
>Because it is in my interest to keep the games that interest me (board
>games, that is) in one place,

[generic usenet response #769 --- extrapolate to the max]

I surprised you don't recommend everything be posted to rec.games,
that way you wouldn't miss any postings that you might be interested in.
Sure, the volume would be high, but people just have to use sensible
keywords, and they should learn how to use killfiles anyway!

[note for the humor impaired: feel free to insert a liberal amount of
smilies in the above paragraph]

>> Responses such as "learn about killfiles",
>> "use sensible keywords", "You think this is high volume, try alt.foo.bar!"
>> are not constructive.
>
>I would say at least the first two are.

Killfiles and Sensible Keywords are Good Things, but they are not the
solution here.  Usenet is a hierarchy, for good reason.

-neilb
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:45:09 GMT
Organization: Megadodo Publications, Light City, Ursa Minor Beta

How about this:

       2/3 (67%) of voters must vote YES/RM to kill the group, else kept
       
       100 votes of NO/KEEP will save the group, regardless of 2/3 above

That makes it reasonably difficult, and it does bear some resemblance to
the current method of creating groups.

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)

///   ____   \\\  "Sorry, did I say something wrong?  Pardon me for
| |/ /    \ \| |   breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't even 
 \\_|\____/|_//    know why I bother to say it oh God I'm so depressed.
     \_)\\/        Here's another one of those self-satisfied doors.
       `-'         Life... don't talk to me about life...."
Lines: 15
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 92 09:09:27 MDT
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
	<Btz4t3.FsM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:

>> I agree that such a procedure needs to be in place but there has to be
>> some kind of use test for the newsgroup. Namely this should only be done
>> to newsgroups that have <X posts per month over Y months. I'd go for
>> something like X=20 and Y=6 myself.

> And what about groups like news.announce.important?

   It still needs to be initiated by someone; it's not an automatic
process. I imagine if some fool decided to issue a CFR for
news.announce.important, the vote would fail by a decent margin. And
if the vote passes, maybe we didn't need it after all.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: mgm@clipper.ingr.com (Mike Marfell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: FAQ
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:06:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA



       Hello Net World,


              Where can one obtain the FAQ? I'd like to know the
    correct procedure for starting a new group. Thanks for any
    and all help!


                                                    -Mike
-- 

Mike Marfell                                      mgm@clipper.ingr.com
From: wmorgan@stsci.edu (Windsor A. Morgan)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.babylon5
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:23:20 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

In article <BtpH2r.2J0@uunet.uu.net> techy@iastate.edu (Troy A Rutter) writes:
>This is a call for discussion on the creation of the new newsgroup
>rec.arts.sf.babylon5.

I don't think so.  The show hasn't even been broadcast and has only
recently started recording episodes.  Even though there is a lot of
interest in the show (or at least in anecdotes about the recording of
the episodes) it doesn't make sense (in my opinion) to make an
"official" newsgroup for something that has not been seen yet.

It may look popular now, but it could die within a year.  There is the
alt.tv.twin-peaks newsgroup.  "Twin Peaks" used to be quite popular.
Now it has all but fallen from the face of the Earth.  It is a good
thing that a rec.arts.twin-peaks wasn't created during its height of
popularity.

There is movement every year to create a Quantum Leap newsgroup, and
(quite justifiably) it is not created.  Even "The Simpsons" does not
have a rec* newsgroup; it just has alt.tv.simpsons.  I suggest
creating a alt.tv.babylon5 newsgroup; if "Babylon 5" is around for a
few years, *maybe* it would justify a rec.*.babylon5.

Finally, there was talk about making a "rec.arts.babylon5".  Again, I
don't think so.  Maybe when (*if*) "Babylon 5" becomes the cultural
icon as "Star Trek", "Doctor Who", and "Star Wars" have become would
it warrant being a newsgroup name likee that.
-- 
'Verily, there be no leader as wise as the Vision!'
                         Windsor Morgan (wmorgan@stsci.edu OR NHT@PSUVM.BITNET)
                         Space Telescope Science Institute
                         Baltimore, MD   21218
From: jblum@hamlet.umd.edu (Hi ho -- Kermit the Frog here...)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:45:19 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <BtpH33.2KD@uunet.uu.net> ramsey@cua.edu (Betsy Ramsey) writes:
>This is a Request For Discussion about a proposed new group
>rec.arts.sf.tv.blakes7, the purpose of which would be to discuss the
>British science-fiction television show _BLAKES 7_.  Some preliminary
>discussion has already taken place in rec.arts.tv.uk and alt.config.

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  Right now it's quite difficult for a Blake fan with limited
net.time to keep up with the Blake discussions scattered over three or
four groups.  Please let's centralize it!
From: kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Sung Hyun Kim)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Idea: sci.econ->talk.politics.econ
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:12:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1992Sep4.181231.28178
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <1992Sep4.041316.22654@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> eric@Turing.ORG (Eric Prestemon) writes:
>This group (sci.econ) is out of hand.
>   Of the 20 or so threads that were up for me to pick, only 3 were
>not "talk.politics.econ"-appropriate topics. I would say 2 of those
>17 remaining apply to this group, and the rest are just politics.
>And honestly, today was a good day. For people who read
>talk.politics.misc, to which many of the sci.econ posts are cross-
>posted, this isn't a problem. For people who care about economics (not
>demopublicans and the never-ending "libertarians are Satan's best 
>friends" arguments, this group is a waste. 
>
>     Proposal 1: Rename this group to talk.politics.econ. 
>     Proposal 2: Create T.P.E, and keep this group.
>I prefer 2, but 1 is better than the current solution. A few quick quotes
>from the last 10 or so posts i read...

I second this proposal. And I prefer second proposal , too.

>
>(follow-ups to news.groups)
>-- 
>Eric Prestemon (ecp2z@virginia.edu) 
>"Jesus saves! Gretzky steals! Gretzky scores!"


-- 
 Sung Hyun Kim                                                         
         kim_sh@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu  // kim_sh@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu 
Dept. of Economics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218               
..... graduate of Korea Institute of Technology.........
From: moliver@pyramid.com (Mike Oliver)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.stratus
Keywords: Stratus, VOS, FTX, fault tolerant, news, mailing list
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:58:51 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology

[Something appears to have eaten my contribution to my previous
posting.  Hopefully this second attempt will meet with the posting
software's editorial approval.]

In article <B3OINWJ@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <5884@transfer.stratus.com> moser@sw.stratus.com (Tom Moser) writes:
>>I would favor something like comp.sys.ft-avail to discuss all
>>fault tolerant and high-availability platforms. Limiting the group to
>>Stratus invites creating several other groups to discuss the same topics
>>as they relate to other vendors. Having one central group for all ft and
>>high availability topics is probably a better idea.
>
>That sounds like a comp.arch subgroup, not a comp.sys one.

A group for the discussion of fault tolerant and highly-available
systems sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  I agree with Peter that
such a group belongs in comp.arch rather than in comp.sys, and I'd
probably vote for something like comp.arch.fault-tol or .hi-avail.

However, this is tangential to the purpose of comp.sys.stratus, which
is being mooted as a forum for the discussion of Stratus machines,
their operating systems, and the software that runs on them.  The fact
that the Stratus machines happen to be fault-tolerant is pretty much
incidental.  I'd wouldn't be surprised to see the occasional "What's
the difference between Stratus and Tandem" thread in comp.sys.stratus,
but I'd expect the bulk of the traffic to be the same sort of thing
that crops up on the mailing list -- "Does anyone have vi for VOS",
"How do I get the current directory name into my VOS prompt", "What's
with the i860 box", and other topics that aren't concerned with fault
tolerance per se.

Regards, Mike.

moliver@pyramid.com
{allegra,decwrl,hplabs,munnari,sun,utai,uunet}!pyramid!moliver
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.games.abstract (Re: rec.games.strategic controversy)
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:50:24 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Aug26.231908.12593@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, by neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers):
> [generic usenet response #769 --- extrapolate to the max]
> I surprised you don't recommend everything be posted to rec.games,

But then the volume would be too high.  You see, my arguments are
based on the real situation in this group, not on some personal
criterion on what constitute "good" or "bad" games.  I don't play
Battletech, nor will I ever.  A major part of the postings in this
group is about Battletech (perhaps more than all the wargame postings
together).  I don't mind, because the volume makes it no problem to me
to filter them out.

> Usenet is a hierarchy, for good reason.

Yes, and flattening it out as far as possible is not the solution.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: saslpo@unx.sas.com (Leonard Paul Olszewski)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.communication.speech
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:31:10 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu



----------------------------Original message----------------------------

In article <BtwntD.35@uunet.uu.net>, you write:
|> This is a Request for Discussion on a newsgroup to discuss aspects of
|> speech communication, oratory, and public speaking.

[deletions]

As an old college debater, I'd love to participate in a newsgroup like
this. Unfortunately, they restrict the newsgroups we get at my job site,
so that we don't see any in the misc.* hierarchy. Sorry.

Good luck, though. Why not go with misc.speaking?

Len
From: rick@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:45:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.145220.22644@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
> In article <BtyEpu.2CM@uunet.uu.net>, aryeh@cash.ucsc.edu (Aryeh Friedman) writes:
> >
> >		Following the normal Request for Discussion (RFD)
> >	procedure a call to vote on a CFR can be made.  The vote will proceed
> >	in the normal voting procedure.  The only difference is that only a
> >	2/3 majority is needed for the CFR to pass not the normal 2/3 and
> >	100 more yes then no votes (see note 1 for reasons for this).
> 
> I think this is the wrong way to decide whether a group should be removed or
> not.  If enough people want the group, then it should be allowed to remain,
> regardless of the ratio of those who don't want it to remain.  The idea is to
> remove *dead* groups, not *unpopular* groups.

I agree with this sentiment. If the idea is to removed unused groups then 
perhaps the best idea is for the CFR to be defeated if some number (25 say)
vote against the removal. This would be the ONLY way for the CFR to succeed.
If there are not 25 people who want a group to remain, then it probably should
go away. If there are as many as 25 people who do not want the group to go away
then it would not. This will prevent "unpopular" news groups from having to be
revoted everytime someone gets a hair and decides to "kill" a news group.In 
this scheme, there is no such thing as a vote to remove but simply a vote to
retain.  

Part of what should be included in the CFR should be the traffic statistics on
how active the group has been and if a CFR for a group fails, that group cannot
be put up for removal for 6 months.

Now if you want thia procedure to include killing off unpopular groups, then 
that is a different subject and should be handled under different ratios than
creation. [something like 3/4 in favor of removing and at least a 100 vote
difference between 'YES-remove' and "NO-keep"]. In my own opinion, this is a
very bad idea. Considering the flame wars which crop up over creation, I can
imagine they would pale in comparison to the wars which would crop up if this
type of mechanism were implemented. I have this vision of perpertual 
'discussions' on the bicycle re-org, the creation of rec.moto.harley and the
sf hierarchy -).
-- 
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
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Vote change?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:15:33 GMT
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA

d-lewart@uiuc.edu (Daniel S. Lewart) writes:

> I am running a CFV for a new newsgroup.  One person voted "No" and made
> a comment.  I replied to the comment.  Now, that person would like to
> change their vote to "Yes".  Is this okay?

   The rule (yes, I know -- guideline) is against campaigning, so the
point seems to me to be how objective your answer was. If you
claryfied some point in the charter, it'd be fine. If you told why the
group was worthwhile and should be created, the new "yes" shouldn't count.
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Splitting news.groups?
	Re: RESULT: talk.politics new groups all fail
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:42:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.164019.23423@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Why? Are the politics groups simply an interest of so few, but
>talkative, persons that there is no wide support to find?

I think that's it. There's been quite a bit of activity in news.groups
lately, and it's hard to follow. Trn makes things worse, if anything,
because it's too easy just to nuke threads on groups you're not interested
in. I just checked to see if the proposal was outrageously weird and then
ignored it.

Perhaps it's time to split news.groups? On what lines, though? By hierarchy
is usually suggested at this point, but that would be a mistake: often the
choice of hierarchy becomes a critical factor and a by-hierarchy split would
tend to hide proposals from people who should be interested. Crossposting
isn't the answer here, because the proposer tends not to consider his own
choice inappropriate.

How about splitting by phase: a group for brainstorming, a group for RFDs,
a group for CFV flames^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussions, and a group for mop-up?
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Organization: Megadodo Publications, Light City, Ursa Minor Beta
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:14:21 GMT

hollasch@kpc.com (Steve Hollasch) writes:
>aryeh@cash.ucsc.edu (Aryeh Friedman) writes:

>>          The Need for a Call for Removal (CFR)
>>                  Procedure for UseNet:
>>         Formal Proposal for New UseNet Guideline
>:
>>Procedural Details:
>>
>>        Following the normal Request for Discussion (RFD)
>>procedure a call to vote on a CFR can be made.  The vote will proceed
>>in the normal voting procedure.  The only difference is that only a
>>2/3 majority is needed for the CFR to pass not the normal 2/3 and
>>100 more yes then no votes (see note 1 for reasons for this).

>    In my opinion, newsgroup removal should be MORE difficult to pass than
>newsgroup creation.  I believe that newsgroup removal should be predicated
>by a lack of supporters, rather than a preponderance of the opposition.  A
>better set of criteria would be the failure of some minimum number of
>people (say 200) to voice their support for the group.  Whatever the
>number chosen is, it should be somewhere around a small number to justify
>a usenet newsgroup, and a large, but not unwieldy number for a mailing
>list.

100 seems to be a nice, historical number.  And we aren't talking 100
margin, nor 100 total votes, but 100 total NO/KEEP votes.  If that is
met or exceeded, then the result of the ratio test is moot.

>    In addition, some minimum number of people (say 100) should be
>required to initiate a call for removal.

Would that then be an RFCFR (Request For Call For Removal) ?

>    In addition, there should be some stipulation regarding appropriate
>waiting periods following newsgroup creation that this process can be
>initiated (I suggest six months).

As well as a period of time for repeating the request.  6 months should
do there as well.  That's probably taken care of by existing guidelines
on votes in general; if not, perhaps that passage should be generalized.

>Steve Hollasch                                   Kubota Pacific Computer, Inc.
>hollasch@kpc.com                                 Santa Clara, California

-- gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...)

///   ____   \\\  "Sorry, did I say something wrong?  Pardon me for
| |/ /    \ \| |   breathing, which I never do anyway so I don't even 
 \\_|\____/|_//    know why I bother to say it oh God I'm so depressed.
     \_)\\/        Here's another one of those self-satisfied doors.
       `-'         Life... don't talk to me about life...."
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.sex.stories