From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Alt.fan.tolkien
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:30:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Jul24.195053.25430@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
> In article <3667@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>>I would certainly carry a group for the "followers" of tolkien.  Newgroup
>>alt.fan.tolkien if it interests you.

>    But I think this is exactly what we don't want: people newgrouping 
> because the group is of interest to them. We want groups that are of interest
> to many people. The existence of many joke.groups is not evidence of anything.

This is alt.  The primary guideline is:

                If you don't want the group don't carry it.
                
The secondary guideline is:

                If you do want it, carry it.

The tertiary guideline is:

                They're Guidelines, NOT Rules! [tm]
        
However, if we want to "vote" on things to see how many people have an
interest -- well then there's always "news.groups".  I think it is important
to keep this point in mind.  They "survey" all the time in news.groups.  We
just scan for common sense in alt.  If a group already exists for a topic, we
should point users in the proper direction.  If a group is less than called
for, such as "alt.inverting.kibos", it's up to each admin to decide whether
or not to honor the newgroup request.  

(I have a simple rule of thumb that says "Never newgroup anything where the
same word appears 3 or more times".  "Alt.wesley.die.die.die" falls into
that category).

True, it is best (at least for me) to have the newsgroup name reflect the
topic of the group.  (That's one of the reasons that I have no problem
with the proposal at hand).  It's also best that some time is taken to
ask if the name makes sense or if the group already exists.  But I'm not
about to tell people that they've got to prove they have "enough" people
to justify the group.  That's for the news.group people.

I will carry any alt group at my news server that appears to have a
legitimate interest, a resonably descriptive name, and is not duplicated
elsewhere.  I believe that this is in the best interest of my customers.
(This is another reason why I have no problem with the proposal at hand).

This is why I'll carry an alt.fan.tolkien and not an alt.oobe.

I will also stop carrying any alt group that appears in one of the "regular"
hierarchies.  I think this is common sense as well.


Discussion of Tolkien's works is a fine topic.  If people want to do this
I think it's great.  If, six months after the newgroup, there's no discussion
and the group remains empty, I'll remove it from my server.  If one of
my customers complains, I'll put it back.  No problem.  Once again,
I think this is straight forward.


(I do this all the time and not just for alt.groups.  I removed
comp.society.women from my server even though it's an "official" newsgroup
because nobody was using the group.  There was no vote required.  Just
common sense.  I also took out about 100 other groups that have dried
up.  So far, so good).


>    I am just encouraging people to behave responsibly.

That's always a good idea and I have no problem with that.  I'm just saying
that the proposal is fine by me and I'll carry it if anyone wants to make the
group.  I'd not carry it if it had a non-descript name.

So, to make a long story short, I don't have a problem with this group.
If someone really wants it enough to send out a newgroup, I'll take it
here.  Other admins are welcome to do as they please.

This is alt after all.

Terry J. Wood
University of Pittsburgh
Computing and Information Services
Systems and Networks Group
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS