Why?
Brad Allen
the promotion of universal (i.e. worldwide) discussion.
I'm not sure what would be gained by the US being any more US-centric
than it already is.
The Distribution: line works fine for limiting distribution of
postings. There are very few groups which would be appropriate for
this us.* hierarchy, and even then I can't see wanting to exclude
people from around the world in my learning experience.
I for one don't want any of my favorite worldwide groups put into this
hierarchy.
Brad Allen
Jamie Gritton
> I'm not sure what would be gained by the US being any more US-centric
> than it already is.
Many people aren't interested in some US topics. It would be nice for
them to have an easy way of not paying to carry what they don't want.
> The Distribution: line works fine for limiting distribution of
> postings.
When it is actually used, it works a little (not much). It is grossly
underused, so even this small benefit is generally lost. A different hierarchy
fits into the current news picture well as far as restricting the transfer and
having *all* articles on a subject get tagged.
And it's not about individual articles, but whole topics.
> There are very few groups which would be appropriate for
> this us.* hierarchy, and even then I can't see wanting to exclude
> people from around the world in my learning experience.
Except that many of these people around the world would pay for the benifit
of your wisdom, and may very wall not care to hear it. I for one am glad that
topics local to Germany (for example) do not take my disk space and network
traffic. I would be even more grateful if I paid a direct connect-time cost
for my feeds.
> I for one don't want any of my favorite worldwide groups put into this
> hierarchy.
The hierarchy will (most likely) be used mostly by new groups that don't
belong worldwide.
--
James Gritton - gri...@byu.edu - I disclaim