Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!kre From: kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: New news groups Message-ID: <9381@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 21:54:38 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.9381 Posted: Fri Jul 26 21:54:38 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 09:39:39 EDT References: <629@gatech.CSNET> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 70 Summary: Procedures for establishing a new group In article <629@gatech.CSNET>, spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) writes: > Net.bizarre should never have been created. The proper procedure for > creating a new newgroup were not followed. For the information > of our readers, the procedure is: > 1) Propose a new group in "net.news.group" and related, existing groups > 2) Poll the readership for comments > 3) Establish that there is/would be sufficient traffic > 4) Based on responses, create the group. I would like to suggest that those steps should normally be followed in the order 3 1 2 4 That is, first get the traffic. No matter how interesting or useful articles on some topic might be, there is no point making a new group if no-one has anything to say about it. The best way to get a new subject of discussion going is probably to start it - pick the "most appropriate" group, and say something. If there are other "possibly appropriate" groups, you could post a pointer article to them, indicate that a new, and possibly interseting theme of discussion is starting. From that, one of several things might happen a) no-one answers, or after a very short interval all discussion on the topic dies. In this case, all that anyone wants to say has probably been said, no new group was needed. b) there is a small amount of traffic. In this case, just keeping the discussion in the original group is appropriate. c) discussion proliferates, so much that the people who used to use the group that you chose start complaining that their group has been taken over. This is where you propose a new group, get support, etc. This won't be hard to do, or take very long. You already have the support of all the people interested in your new topic, plus all the people reading the group it is in who want you to go away. d) discussion proliferates, so much so that the old traffic in the group vanishes completely. In this case you have a "new group" (with an old name) ready made. The old uses of the group can't have been very active, or you would never have been able to take over. The group may not have the "very best" name possible (but which of them do now?). Another way to establish traffic might be to start with a mailing list, if it gets big enough to be better handled as a newsgroup, then you at least know that it is going to be used. Its worth remembering that having a group with a name that suggests a topic that you would like to read about doesn't get you anything to read - you need to find people willing to write about the subject first. The various "vlsi" groups (present, and removed) demonstrate that, either the vlsi people are too busy doing fascinating work to have time to tell anyone about it, or are simply not doing anything worth talking about (take your pick), but whichever it is, I've certainly never seen anything useful in those groups. Proposing a group before establishing that there will indeed be some traffic to fill it only leads to lots of people who want to get the (perhaps non existant) information sending lots of messages to net.news.group supporting its existance. Someone then gets tired of all this, and creates the group to make the "yes create it" messages go away, and then there is this empty group, just sitting there. The only way to discover that there will be enough traffic, is to start a discussion somewhere. Robert Elz ucbvax!kre ps: this article is not related to the net.bizarre discussion that spaf's message was mostly about.