Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:48:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1395 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:3aa41e91.189907912@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.nntp, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > Currently we (.loc.au) can't post in the state level groups • (.loc.au.vic),
> > only in specific city groups (.loc.au.vic.mel) which are pretty much 1 • per
> > state ATM anyway. And not many people currently post there anyway. I • think
> > it'd be good to keep the state groups, certainly don't need city level. • Even
> > if we get our LUGs in the .org hierarchy (below), I think we still need
> > state groups in .loc for non-organisation local state stuff.
>
> So you're saying?--deleting the super-lower-level metro groups in .loc.au
> would be (possibly) a step forward but deleting the state-level groups
> loc.au.xxx would be a step backward?
yep, basically I think that would work well _with .loc.au_ other countries
may vary.
> > I think this'd work for general (non-themed) LUGs as well - put them all • in
> > .org.general (or similar), but have links to the local ones in (eg) • .org.au.
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Aren't all the general (non-themed) LUGs true LUGs in the normal sense of
> the word -- i.e., regional user groups?
I guess they are - I was just thinking about having all the general LUGs in
one place, similar to how all the train LUGs (LTCs) would end up. May not be
useful though. Just throwing the idea into the pot.
> > On thinking about this, .org.general would probably become fairly large.
> > Maybe they should be in their local .org group (eg .org.au) with links • in
> > .org.general?
> >
> > OK maybe we don't need .org.general at all - just throwing some ideas
> > around.
>
> Thanks, lots more ideas is good. I wanna keep the names as short as
> possible -- so having an .org.general is probably getting too long for
> comfort. That's why it's got two-letter ISO country abbreviations now.
Yeah, after doing some thinking I think I'd be happy with just having all
the local groups in .org.xx
> > Also, I still think it'd be good to have lugnet.technic.classic 8?)
>
> You mean Expert Builder or non-modern Technic?
non-modern stuff - it's a bit hard to define. I guess that answers my own
question - it's a bit hard to add a group for a non-definable entity. I
guess I'm just thinking that all the recent technic is vastly different from
the early 80s stuff even up to the mid 90s. But you've already got
.bionicle, .roborider & .slizer separate, and that probably covers all the
stuff I'm not interested in. Just me mouthing off without having a good
stiff think first.
Regards,
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| (...) Ahhh--BINGO! Those are *very* *nice* and *short* name components!!! (...) So you're saying?--deleting the super-lower-level metro groups in .loc.au would be (possibly) a step forward but deleting the state-level groups loc.au.xxx would be a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
