msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (09/03/88)
> There seems to be a large body of folks who want to set up > news groups without showing the kind of volume that justifies the > setting up of a newsgroup. (remember ont.singles - what???) > > I think that we might want to have a policy about the setting up of a > new newsgroup. Maybe modelled after the US USENET policy. If there is a US USENET policy, I'm unaware of it. I think the number of US-only groups on the net is negligible. The policy described later in the above-quoted article is that for net-wide groups. The reason the policy exists is related to the huge population -- for a basically unregulated entity -- of the net as a whole. It has arisen relatively recently; in the early days of the net, newsgroups were created with no formal procedure and sometimes, I think, even with no discussion. If that was done now, things would be too chaotic. It seems to me that the Ontario subset of the net is now too big for us to create newsgroups without discussion, but not so big that we need a formal procedure similar to the net-wide policy. Here, we can take the opposite point of view: if there seems LIKELY to be traffic, take a poll; if there is a consensus of support, then create the group. If the traffic doesn't appear, remove it again. There won't be so many people proposing groups in Ontario, or even in Canada, that that's not workable. Ont.singles was precisely such a creation ... there seemed to be likely to be going to be traffic, because net.singles (as it was then) was being cut off from Ontario. Later I proposed it for deletion as part of a general clean-up of Ontario and Canadian groups, but there was sentiment to keep it, so it stayed. I'm not subscribed to it now; if there is no traffic any more, someone should again propose it for removal. Mark Brader, Toronto "Those who mourn for 'USENET like it was' should utzoo!sq!msb remember the original design estimates of maximum msb@sq.com traffic volume: 2 articles/day" -- Steven Bellovin
david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (09/03/88)
In article <1988Sep2.175608.5257@sq.uucp> msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > >> There seems to be a large body of folks who want to set up >> news groups without showing the kind of volume that justifies the >> setting up of a newsgroup. (remember ont.singles - what???) >> >> I think that we might want to have a policy about the setting up of a >> new newsgroup. Maybe modelled after the US USENET policy. > > >If there is a US USENET policy, I'm unaware of it. I think the number >of US-only groups on the net is negligible. The policy described later >in the above-quoted article is that for net-wide groups. Bad wording on my part. Since the decision to carry a group is primarily a function of getting the major US sites to agree, I called this the US USENET policy - you are right, it is the international USENET policy. >Ont.singles was precisely such a creation ... there seemed to be likely >to be going to be traffic, because net.singles (as it was then) was being >cut off from Ontario. Later I proposed it for deletion as part of a >general clean-up of Ontario and Canadian groups, but there was sentiment >to keep it, so it stayed. I'm not subscribed to it now; if there is no >traffic any more, someone should again propose it for removal. And this is my point - I don't really think I want a number of artifacts floating around the news system with a posting level of one article every six months. (Usually saying, "Hey does this group still exist?") I don't know about your users but mine get very flustered when they see "Bogus newsgroup: ont.singles, remove from .newsrc?" when they kick in rn. If this happens with any real frequency (as it might in the scenario above) this could become a major headache. What is wrong with saying "Post somewhere else for a while and *show* us you have the volume to create a new group?" ont.singles would never had made it under those rules it had maybe 5 articles/week tops and didn't maintain that for three months. I also wonder how many folk are making a reasonable choice when asked whether a newsgroups should be created *without* having seen any of the content of the proposed newsgroup. For example, I want to start a group about X windows. Quite a lot of people say "yes, do it". So I say fine, and start it up. No one posts to it. Everyone is waiting for someone else to post because they want to *read* the group, not write to it (and admit their ignorance?). >Mark Brader, Toronto "Those who mourn for 'USENET like it was' should >utzoo!sq!msb remember the original design estimates of maximum >msb@sq.com traffic volume: 2 articles/day" -- Steven Bellovin -david- ---- David Haynes (yunexus!murder!david)
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (09/06/88)
In article <3198@geac.UUCP>, david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > > What is wrong with saying "Post somewhere else for a while and *show* > us you have the volume to create a new group?" What is wrong is that volume alone is not criteria for creating a newsgroup. Is the value of a group totally dependent on the traffic it creates? You want tonnage? Create ont.bizzare. It's very easy to generate lots of noise. Give me groups where there are few postings, but all are useful. The Usenet guidelines (which I have called into question in an earlier posting) require a call for votes - they do NOT require a previous volume. There are many existing 'comp' groups which have far less volume than most mail lists. Why? Because there are purposes in this world for both high-volume mail lists and low-volume newsgroups. Promise of lots of volume (AND a successful vote) didn't result in the creation of rec.sex. There are many precedents where low volume groups have been blessed but potentially high volume groups have been rejected. > For example, I want to start a group about X windows. Quite a lot of people > say "yes, do it". So I say fine, and start it up. No one posts to it. What would be in your proposed group which would not be appropriate to comp.windows.x, which already exists? What makes Canadian X-Windows different from the U.S. flavour? Uniqueness is just as important a criteria as volume. > David Haynes (yunexus!murder!david) -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.UUCP / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.
david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (09/07/88)
In article <325@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >In article <3198@geac.UUCP>, david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: >> What is wrong with saying "Post somewhere else for a while and *show* >> us you have the volume to create a new group?" >What is wrong is that volume alone is not criteria for creating a newsgroup. >Is the value of a group totally dependent on the traffic it creates? As an aside, how do you assess the value of a group of which you have no knowledge? >You want tonnage? Create ont.bizzare. It's very easy to generate lots of >noise. Give me groups where there are few postings, but all are useful. Useful in what respect? One man's garbage... It appears, through this and other email I have received, that no one else thinks this is a big deal. So, I will let it drop. I just have a strong adversion to being asked to vote for things of which I have no knowledge, such as the validity of a new newsgroup. >> For example, I want to start a group about X windows. Quite a lot of people >> say "yes, do it". So I say fine, and start it up. No one posts to it. >What would be in your proposed group which would not be appropriate to >comp.windows.x, which already exists? What makes Canadian X-Windows different >from the U.S. flavour? Uniqueness is just as important a criteria as volume. I don't really want to post world-wide that I have just added the latest version of xphoon to the Canadian Archives. Similarly, other folk asking for, say, a site to make the X tapes for them, might only want to ask the Canadian folks first. Yes, the distribution clause of the news posters would handle this, but in a very clumsy way when compared to a specific news group. >Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (09/09/88)
In article <3205@geac.UUCP>, david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > As an aside, how do you assess the value of a group of which you have > no knowledge? > [...] > I just have a > strong adversion to being asked to vote for things of which I have no > knowledge, such as the validity of a new newsgroup. That's a good point, but I don't know how well it can be answered. Nobody but you can judge whether a group is worth reading or not (or whether it's worth having or not). But nothing that a group proposer can say or promise is sufficient to help you make that decision. Even traffic in another group doesn't guarantee volume for a spin-off. But unfortunately, that means you can't propoerly evaluate a newsgroup until after it's been created. Most of the debate that surrounded the creation of comp.women, were concerns about whether its content would be apprporiate to 'comp'. It was impossible for the proposers to adequately answer this, because there was no track record for what they wanted to to. Anyone who saw soc.women probably didn't like its s/n ratio, but the comparison was unfair. How about some kind of probationary period for all new groups? Allow them to be created, but come back and re-vote (or whatever) after a certain period of time. I don't consider making a group in 'alt' and trying to move it later, a good way of doing this. I'm sure many of the people who railed against comp.women probably don't find the group (now comp.society.women) so hard to take now that its content has been measurable. However, it appears obvious that ont.singles would not have survived such a probation. Comments? Does this address any of your concerns, David? -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.UUCP / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.