Subject: Re: Self-Destructing Newsgroups
From: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ)
Date: 1990-11-20, 10:59
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.tv.twin-peaks
Reply-to: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Terry J. Wood)

In article <376@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes:

> >Let's assume that the newsgroup has been created.  ABC cancels the
> >series tomorrow.  According to your proposal, rec.arts.tv.twin-peaks
> >would continue until 1/20/91 whereupon a rmgroup mesg would be sent 
> >out.  But three weeks later the Fox network announces that it has 
> >reached an agreement with Lynch and Frost to air the show beginning 
> >5/1/91.  Are you going to come back here and go through this whole 
> >voting biz again?

Let's hope for some "common sense" here on USENET.

Since I've agreed to issue the "rmgroup", I would wait until 2 months
after the show has been canceled.  To me, this means 2 months after the
last time the show is aired. That would probably be some time in the
summer or fall and of course I would check and see just how much traffic
is appearing in the group.  A "fair warning" would be issued so as not
to inconvience or surprise users of the group.  I think this is
reasonable to all concerned.

If the show were to "re-appear" before I issued the "rmgroup", I wouldn't
insist that an "rmgroup" had to be issued.  I would use common sense and
let the group continue as is. 

Of course, it can always be argued that the show may reappear at 
any time "t" after the "rmgroup" no matter how long I wait to issue it.
No matter what is agreed upon, I'm sure I can come up with a scenario to
prove it imperfect.

The important thing is to remember that USENET is here to serve us.

If the "rules" (read "pomp and circumstance") of USENET require that a
new vote be held with discussion and voting in the scenario you
envision, then so be it.

Common sense would dictate (at least to me) that it would be
unnecessary to redebate/revote/reflame in your scenario, for I would 
honor a newgroup at this site for the group without the new vote.
Your site's admin's mileage may vary.

All of this has come up because someone was worried about what will
happen if the television show were to be canceled.  I agreed to remove
the group when the time was right as a compromise (and a net-public-service).

Now we hear that USENET can not deal with a "temporary" subject.  It
must be permanent to be a part of USENET.  I really don't see why this
must be true -- it simply hasn't been addressed before.  It's a new idea,
that's all.  And let's be realistic, just how long does anyone think
USENET will exist?  Forever?  Hardly.  USENET will exist until something
makes it obsolete.  The more adaptable USENET is, the longer USENET will
last.

The "rmgroup" is a good compromise for all concerned.  Perhaps some sort
of 'cleanup' rule of thumb could be applied to other groups, without
making a complex algorithm out of it.  The ALTnet works so well this way.

Terry
-- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - Craig Johnson