Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!telly!evan
From: evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: New newsgroup proposed - ont.unix-unanimous
Keywords: new group
Message-ID: <323@telly.UUCP>
Date: 3 Sep 88 02:18:32 GMT
References: <320@telly.UUCP> <3191@geac.UUCP>
Distribution: ont
Organization: System telly, Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 60

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.