Re: Important Info on comp.databases.postgresql.general

Woodchuck Bill <bwr607(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>ru(dot)igarashi(at)usask(dot)ca wrote in news:cmr97f$t29$1(at)tribune(dot)usask(dot)ca:

>> That's his perogative. His server, his rules (or whoever's he set the
>> groups up on). We don't have the right to dictate what groups he puts
>> on his news server. If someone else decides to take a feed from him
>> and allow the group on their server, same story, their server, their
>> rules. That kind of independence is at the foundation of usenet.
>> While I may be displeased that the bogus groups exist, I'm similarly
>> not going to be supportive of moves to dictate what groups he puts
>> on his server.

>Those groups are propagated to *other* servers, and they confuse lots of
>people into thinking that they are bonafide Big-8 groups.

I realize that, and that is part of the basis for my objection to
folks creating bogus newsgroups. But the fact remains that it's
their server, and thus, their rules.

>Even Google is
>either confused or careless about the status of those groups.

Google is just one of those services that doesn't give a damn, and
thus exercising their perogative, just like any number of servers
that wish to collect as many groups as they can.

>If the NAN
>team announces a reversal of the rec.woodworking.all-ages result in the
>next few days, would you have any problem with the proponents sending out a
>control message anyway?

That's a separate, though related, matter. If the proponents owned
or had access to a server and decided to create r.w.a-a, that's
their perogative. If they wish to spread r.w.a-a, well, that turns
out to be their perogative, too. Anyone is allowed to do this.
It's totally up to rest of the news server admins to honor or reject
the newgroup. Again, their server, their rules. I wouldn't be
happy about it, but I'm not going to force them to do otherwise.

>Archiving the rogue group in Google Groups?

Google's choice.

>If
>nothing else, taking no steps toward action sets a bad example, and might
>encourage others to skip the RFD and create more rogue groups.

As Russ & Co. say, if it comes to that, then 1) the existing process
deserves to be ignored, 2) news admins have voted with their feet
and decided to go with another process, or found a better way. I
don't like the idea of being bypassed, but they are right. It's our
job to find ways to make "non-bogus groups" more attractive. This
process has always been predicated on voluntary acceptance of the
results. I don't think Russ & Co are willing to abandon that
philosophy, even if it means the (deserved) demise of the Big-8
process.

ru

--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.