Subject:
|
Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:44:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
23 times
|
| |
|
|
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 agree with Ross. Archive all sub-state groups, retain loc.au.xxx
(state-level groups), allow posting at state-level groups (for "who's
booking the meeting hall?" type questions). .org.au seems to be working okay
for organisation/market discussions.
Other thoughts?
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newsgroup structure: some tough decisions
|
| Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3aa41e91.189907...net.com... (...) (.loc.au.vic), (...) per (...) think (...) Even (...) yep, basically I think that would work well _with .loc.au_ other countries may vary. (...) in (...) (...) (24 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
