Who needs can.usrgroup? (was Re: Meeting Notice)

[Peter Renzland]

soley at moegate.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) writes:
> In article <2176 at ubc-cs.UUCP> morrison at grads.cs.ubc.ca (Rick Morrison) writes:
>>
>>Now, I have been subscribing (reading would be too generous) to this
>>group since its inception. I have yet to discern any reason why anything
>>that appears here would be of any interest to anyone outside of an
>>apparently small clique of readers in Toronto and near vicinity.

I have yet to discern any reason why any one anywhere in Canada should
hesitate to post any real or imagined contribution of local, regional,
national, or universal interest.

>>I suggest that rather that than wasting network resources, nation-wide,
>>on the sort of idle chatter that predominates here, that this group be
>>converted to 1 (or more) regional mailing lists. 

A call for yet more newsgroups when there appear to be more than enough to
carry the perceived volume of traffic?

> Here! Here! I've never understood why we needed this group in the first place,
> I refused to newgroup it when I was on ontenv, somehow it slipped through the
> cracks here. The argument runs something like this:
> 
> 	We already have comp.org.usrgroup, and the ability to limit
> 	distrubution to can so we don't need it for /usr/group/cdn

I made this argument, but was overwhelmed by a majority of people who felt
that the use of "Distribution:" would overtax the mental powers of typical
posters.
I had gone to a lot of trouble to (legally) create comp.org.usrgroup in the
first place.  Can.usrgroup was then created without formal procedures,
as "it was felt that this was not necessary".

> 	We already have ont.events for meeting announcements for UU and
> 	/usr/group/cdn so we don't need it for that.

Mind if I rephrase that?

"we already have ont.events for UU and /usr/group/cdn events in Ontario, etc.
Events should be cross-posted to comp.org.usrgroup, using appropriate
distribution."

> 	UU has a mailing list for their internal chatter so we don't need it
> 	for that.

In fact, I get everything twice.  Judging by content quality, once would
appear to be more than enough.  Moreover, the mailing list once was
a cohesive list of like-minded people.  The newsgroup contains countless
spectators, who may not all be quite as *unanimous* with their good will.

> 	The traffic in {can,ont,tor}.general is low enough that if there is
> 	actually something to be discussed publicly about either of these
> 	organizations there's plenty of room for it. 

Why not discuss in comp.org.usrgroup, using appropriate distribution?

> 	So, what do we need can.usrgroup for?
> 
> OK, I'm about to 'rmgroup -d local can.usrgroup' anybody care to talk me out of
> it? 

Not me. :-)

[Above is my own opinion, not /usr/group/cdn policy, whatever that may be.]

-- 
Peter