Votes on new groups

David Steffen steffen at mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu
Fri Nov 25 10:16:57 EST 1994


In article <bullock.79.2ED53E80 at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz>
bullock at kahu.lincoln.ac.nz (Bullock, David) writes:

>suggests that new groups might as well be established without a vote and 
>disestablished after some review period on the basis of volume of postings.  
>That would save a lot of bandwidth and effort, not least on your part.
>What do people think?

I am against this change.

Granted, the current barrier to group creation is small, and groups do
get created that don't get much traffic and are later deleted.
(To Dave Kristofferson: About how many groups have been deleted?)

What the current modest barrier to creation is good for is to prevent
groups from being created in which there is interest by only a single
person (for example).

Thus, I see the alternatives as follows:

1) Group creation on demand, with subsequent weeding (what I think you
propose).  Problem: a lot of group creation/deletion, something that,
as I understand it, it bad for the net.

2) Group creation by dictatorial invokation (e.g. by Dave
Kristofferson).  Given how often Dave is already accused of being a
net.dictator*, this would never work IMHO.

* I personally don't think Dave is a net.dictator and would be happy
for him to do this.  I am talking about political reality here.

3) The current system.  Problem, a fair amount of noise accompanies
group creation.

4) Listserv creation on demand, deserving listservs go on to become
newsgroups.  (This currently exists along side 3.  I guess this could
replace 3 entirely.)  Problem: listservs seriously mess up your
mailbox.

I personally still think that 3 is the least of the evils.
-- 
David Steffen, Ph.D., C/Si Consulting.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine.
Voice: (713) 668-3289.  FAX: (713) 668-3453.  Email: steffen at bcm.tmc.edu



More information about the Bioforum mailing list