Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!mp
From: mp@whuxle.UUCP (Mark Plotnick)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: subgroups
Message-ID: <241@whuxle.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 14:07:51 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxle.241
Posted: Mon Feb 13 14:07:51 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 00:22:43 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany
Lines: 48

One problem with the newsgroup hierarchy system right now is that it's
only superficially a hierarchy.  The only thing it buys presently is
protection against the 14-character-filename limit and a way to
selectively unsubscribe to topics of more limited interest.  But you
may not even see the groups and subgroups presented in a treelike order
unless someone is keeping your active file alphabetized.  And, even if
you type U to every net.micro subgroup, you'll still see every new
subgroup that pops up (unless you've discovered how to edit your
.newsrc file).

The current debate has produced some arguments based on misinformation,
pessimism, and a good bit of elitism.  Don't forget that:
	- not everyone is on a free hardwired 9600baud terminal
	- not everyone can spend 5 hours a day reading netnews
	- not everyone can tell whether an article is worth
	  reading by merely reading its title (especially if it's as
	  meaningful as "Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)" )
	- not everyone is willing to read through 100 articles (or headers)
	  in order to find one that interests them.  They should still be able to
	  function productively on this net.
	- the creation of one subgroup is not necessarily going to lead to the
	  creation of 20 others.  More to the point, the creation of one subgroup
	  under a given group doesn't warrant the creation of every other possible
	  type of subgroup under that group.
	- the creation of a new subgroup to serve a special-interest segment
	  is no more discriminatory than creating a new department
	  in a department store that's in a shopping mall.  (hmmm, does this
	  make us the shoppers or the management?)
	- the active file is not too large (yet).  Clean out the newsgroups
	  that were created by mistake and you'll have lots of room (I'm
	  amazed that net.db keeps popping up).

Forming subgroups is fine if done correctly and in moderation, allowing
for the fact that the software needs a little more work.  Those people
who would read everything in net.foo will probably read net.foo.all.
Those who would never read net.foo (e.g. because net.foo is a
high-volume newsgroup filled with flamers) may be happy to read and
maybe even participate in net.foo.subgroup1.  In such a case, how 
can you object to creating such a subgroup?

Finally, ponder this: if there isn't at least one subgroup under a
top-level group, then perhaps that group doesn't belong at top-level in
the first place, and should be a subgroup of something else. Witness
net.{unix,unix-wizards,bugs,usoft} which will forever be separate
because of their heritage.

	Mark Plotnick
	WH 1C-244 x6955