evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (08/31/88)
This is an invitation for discussion on a new newsgroup, ont.unix-unanimous.
There presently exists a group of people, informally known as 'unix unanimous',
which spun off from /usr/group/cdn when it became obvious that there would be no
technical bent to any /u/g/c meetings. Its meetings are open to anyone, member
or not, and has grown from a handful of technically-minded /u/g/c members to a
good mix of regulars, newcomers and one-timers, many of whom wouldn't touch
/u/g/c with a ten-metre pole.
The group presently has a mailing list (submissions to unix-unanimous@moore)
which now has more than 30 members. The intent of the proposed newsgroup is to
make it less of a clique, and letting the Ontario Unix cummunity know what
we're up to. I would hope we can generate interest outside of just Toronto.
The first posting in the group (to be repeated at intervals) will describe
the group, where we meet and what we're up to.
Please mail comments to me, and I will post anything worth summarizing. If
there is no great objection, you will see a newgroup control message in
mid-Sept. Please carry it and propogate it - we can use all the interest
we can get.
Thank you.
--
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) (09/01/88)
In article <320@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >This is an invitation for discussion on a new newsgroup, ont.unix-unanimous. > This is not a direct comment about ont.unix-unanimous, but, one about procedure. 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. Their policy (paraphrased) is: 1. Find a newsgroup that is close to what you want to talk about. 2. Post there for about 3 months. 3. If, over the 3 months, you can show *sustained* volume and a true divergence from that newgroup, request to have a new newgroup created. In this case, perhaps posting the articles that would have gone to ont.unix-unanimous to ont.general for a while would suffice. On the other hand, if you are taking an established mail list over to the news, perhaps you need only show the last three months of volume for the mail list. I was facing a similar situation with the Canadian X Software Repository, in that it could become a newsgroup or a mail list. The final decision was to become a mail list until I could show sufficient volume to become a newsgroup. This has not happened yet -- aside from my erratic postings of Canadian X Notes, there have only been two user-generated postings. Opinions? -david- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David Haynes At Geac until September 9th. New email address: yunexus!lethe!murder!david
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (09/03/88)
In article <3191@geac.UUCP>, david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > This is not a direct comment about ont.unix-unanimous, but, one about > procedure. 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???) A large body? I don't believe there's been a new Ontario group created in a year. If ont.singles is the worst example of what has happened, I don't think we have _that_ much to worry about. Still, the concerns are valid. > 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. > > Their policy (paraphrased) is: > > 1. Find a newsgroup that is close to what you want to talk about. > 2. Post there for about 3 months. > 3. If, over the 3 months, you can show *sustained* > volume and a true divergence from that newgroup, > request to have a new newgroup created. Yeah. And then you have to call for votes, and get the hell flamed out of you for wanting ANY more newsgroups, and then the backbone can still cause an effective veto if they think it'll make people horny... The standard USENET method for creating groups leaves much to be desired. This doesn't mean a policy isn't desirable - just not THAT one, please. > In this case, perhaps posting the articles that would have gone to > ont.unix-unanimous to ont.general for a while would suffice. > On the other hand, if you are taking an established mail list over There are two main reasons for making ont.unix-unanimous a separate group. 1) It allows an easy gateway between the group and the considerable number of people who don't have news, and will STILL have to receive the stuff by mail; 2) Not every site which gets ont.general may want us. It's understandable if folks in Ottawa or Sudbury wonder about the relevance of a Toronto-based group (though I would love it if they would keep listening anyway :-) At this point, the volume will probably be (I figure) about a dozen postings per month. Definitely not enough to cut it under USENET criteria - but by a volume criteria alone, we could easily wipe out a third of the mainstream groups, not to mention all of bionet and pubnet. There's more to the decision of whether or not to make a group than just volume. I can live with keeping it all under ont.general - forever. I just didn't think the Ontario net has had a group glut, and the benefits of an automatic mail-news gateway will help a number of people. Response mailed to me have been unanimously in favour of the group (including, happily, some who have never seen the mail list OR a meeting!) If others consider the idea of a new newsgroup WITHOUT tons of volume objectionable, ont.general it is... -- 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.