From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:04:28 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Dec12.202255.5783@wuecl.wustl.edu> amc@wucs1.wustl.edu (Adam Costello) writes:
>In article <id.97RV.ETA@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>>
>>There is no correlation between Yes and No. Just because a group is popular
>>doesn't mean it should pass against massive opposition. I propose that the
>>guidelines be changed:
>>
>>	Y >= 100 (or 200 or whatever you want)
>>	N <= 50 (or 100 or whatever you want)
>>
>>That is, if more than 50 (100, ...) people oppose a group, there is probably
>>something sufficiently wrong with the group that it should not pass no matter
>>how many ballots are handed in.
>
>I don't see why there should be no-votes at all.  I think if 200 people
>want a new group, let them have it.  Those who don't want it don't
>have to subscribe.  It's not as if creating new groups increases the
>total volume of USENET.  It just makes it easier for people to locate
>the information they're looking for.

Gosh, I have to come down solidly in the middle of these two stands.  Last
first, creating new groups DOES increase the volume.  First off, a group
consumes a certain amount of system resources on every system on usenet
simply by existing.  Readers may not spot that (until the total number of
groups gets so big that your newsreader complains), but news admins do.

Second, dividing the groups more finely increases the volume in several
ways.  It increases the areas of overlap -- the area where a person may
have difficulty deciding which group is most appropriate -- and so
encourages multiple postings, or cross-postings.  Multiple postings eat
filespace, trivially.  Cross-postings eat a bit more filespace in the
form of extra 'link' entries in the directories and larger history
files, eat processing power during the various maintenance procedures,
and also increase the stuff readers have to wade through if they watch
several semi-related groups and don't have an Xref-wiping newsreader.
(Lot of the latter about.)  They also encourage meta-arguments about
whether X should have been posted in group A or group B, which
definitely eat filespace and net bandwidth.

Groups which do not get 'enough' traffic also tend to get ignored.
After a while, people say 'never much interesting in there, I'll
unsubscribe'.  This can cut off the people who do try to use the group
from having their stuff read by people who might know the answers.
There are synergistic benefits from having a somewhat larger (but not
too large -- it is a balancing act) group covering a more diffuse area,
rather than splitting off more specific groups.  It is entirely
reasonable that people who follow a group might think that said group
would work better if undivided, and they need to be able to say so.
Groups which are too specific tend to vanish.

Finally, many admins don't automatically honor group-creating messages.
In some cases it's a matter of policy -- e.g. 'we'll only create new
rec.* groups if one of our local users can justify it'.  In some cases
it's simply defense of filespace on a small system.  A new group can
cut people off from discussions, where they did have the original group
available to them but can't get at the new one.  All in all there are
lots of downsides to creating new groups, and it's not something that
should happen on the whim of a few people, with no opportunity for
objections.

On the other hand, I don't like Peter's idea either.  It means that any
small pressure group with a vested interest (50's not many in a Usenet
context) could block creation of any group they didn't like, for
whatever reason, and regardless of its usefulness or popularity.  Bet,
for example, that I could find 50 creationists in California alone who
would be willing to vote 'no' to the entire bionet hierarchy (if it
were being created anew), or against 'sci.evolution' if anyone were to
try creating it.  There are a lot of people who think that they should
have an absolute right to keep people from talking about topic X, for
virtually any X.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: news.groups