USA hierarchy

[Joel Furr]

Here's a question to debate:

Whereas: No other national hierarchy, or in fact any non Big 7 hierarchy,
must pass muster in news.announce.newgroups via the Guidelines-required
discussion and voting mechanism; and,

Whereas: A new hierarchy designed to contain subjects _only_ of interest
to Americans (as opposed to American subjects of worldwide interest)
should be controlled by Americans and not by worldwide voters; and,

Resolved: That creation of a new usa.* hierarchy, or repair and
reconstruction of the existing but very badly propagated us.* hierarchy
should not be done through the Guidelines and
news.announce.newgroups-style discussion and voting.

[Steve Adams]

jf...@acpub.duke.edu (Joel Furr) writes:

This makes sense. There is no reason to not have a usa hierarchy, much
as other countries have their own.

I say, just do it.

-Steve
--
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
---NASCAR-#7-#28-#51---
ad...@spss.com Soli Deo Gloria Phone: (312) 329-3522
Steve Adams "Space-age cybernomad" Fax: (312) 329-3558

[Jim Jewett]

In article <2tg9pq$t...@news.duke.edu>, Joel Furr <jf...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

|> Whereas: No other national hierarchy, or in fact any non Big 7 hierarchy,
|> must pass muster in news.announce.newgroups via the Guidelines-required
|> discussion and voting mechanism; and,

...

|> Resolved: That creation of a new usa.* hierarchy, or repair and
|> reconstruction of the existing but very badly propagated us.* hierarchy
|> should not be done through the Guidelines and
|> news.announce.newgroups-style discussion and voting.

In theory, you're right.
In practice, us.* didn't take, and if usa.* doesn't take either, it
won't be much use. Going through n.a.n, or at least getting tale
to send the newgroups, may be a practical necessity, whether you like it
or no.

_________ Have a favorite group or mailing list? Describe it to
| grou...@pitt.edu
jJ | Take only memories. ji...@eecs.umich.edu
\__/ Leave not even footprints. jew...@pitt.edu

[J Lee Jaap]

jf...@acpub.duke.edu (Joel Furr) writes:

|>Here's a question to debate:
|>
|>Whereas: No other national hierarchy, or in fact any non Big 7 hierarchy,
|>must pass muster in news.announce.newgroups via the Guidelines-required
|>discussion and voting mechanism; and,

|>Whereas: A new hierarchy designed to contain subjects _only_ of interest
|>to Americans (as opposed to American subjects of worldwide interest)
|>should be controlled by Americans and not by worldwide voters; and,

If it is decided to have voting, there is no technical way to prevent
any interested person from voting. And there is no technical way to
identify "Americans", either in USA or in other countries.
Hierarchies and newsgroups are for "interested" members of the net who
can get feeds.

|>Resolved: That creation of a new usa.* hierarchy, or repair and
|>reconstruction of the existing but very badly propagated us.* hierarchy
|>should not be done through the Guidelines and
|>news.announce.newgroups-style discussion and voting.

Theoretically, this is correct. If it is mentioned in related
global groups (news.groups, news.announce.newgroups (subject to
tale's approval, of course), alt.config, *.answers (per approval),
say in a FAQ, those who see a use in it will get feeds.

However, there is the slight practical gotcha that many sites even in
USA accept newgroups only from tale@uunet. And tale may not give
his imprimatur without a Big7 style vote.

Ideally, us[a].* ought to spread as other non-Big7 hierarchies have:
because admins and users see a need.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L....@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not necessarily speaking for, AS&M Inc,
at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001