2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
Benjamin L.Russell
unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
For your newsgroups file:
comp.lang.lisp.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
RATIONALE: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
Interested in discussing an issue involving the newLISP programming
language, I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss
topics and issues related to newLISP, but to no avail.
newLISP (see http://www.newlisp.org/) is a Lisp-1 dialect of the Lisp
programming language. It currently has a base of at least 346
registered users (as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM (Tokyo
time), and is a general-purpose scripting language. It comes with a
fast, light, multi-tab DrScheme-style IDE (see
http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=IDE) equipped with syntax
highlighting and a built-in REPL.
There is a "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/) with a total of 14448 articles by
346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM
(Tokyo time). However, the forum is set up so that anything posted
can conceivably be deleted afterwards, and requires use of a browser;
however, many USENET users object to a Web-based discussion forum for
programming language discussion because of the possibility of
moderation. I would like to promote discussion of various issues
related to the programming language newLISP on an unmoderated forum.
Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
Common Lisp-oriented focus. Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the
Scheme programming language, of which newLISP is not a dialect.
Comp.lang.functional covers functional programming dialects of all
sorts, but much of the discussion there would be confusing to new
users of newLISP, who are not aware of such differences as a Lisp-1
vs. a Lisp-2 dialect, or of a statically typed programming language
vs. a dynamically typed programming language, and so forth.
If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
header.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
related to the newLISP programming language.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate
in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to
groups in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as
well as the best method of making sure that one's comments or
criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken
to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as
well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID (e.g.,
Barney Fife, <4JGdnb60fsMzHA7Z...@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.groups.proposals
news.groups
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.scheme
PROPONENT:
Benjamin L. Russell DekuDe...@Yahoo.com
CHANGE HISTORY:
{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<95lhr4daphc6ppk5c...@4ax.com>:
>DISTRIBUTION:
>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
> news.groups.proposals
> news.groups
> comp.lang.lisp
> comp.lang.scheme
I approved the 2nd RFD even though this is not true.
You have made some good changes in it in response
to questions people have raised.
The actual distribution of the 2nd RFD was to:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.lisp
If you're having trouble with crossposting limitations,
you may send the 3rd RFD via e-mail to:
news-announ...@moderators.isc.org
or
You may use Agent to send the post via e-mail.
The point of using e-mail is to sidestep any crossposting
limitation that is set by your service provider. The
list must still be limited to five crossposts total.
The distribution list in the body of the RFD should
match the actual groups to which the RFD is posted.
Lastly, you should use the change history to actually
make notes about what changes were made. The notes
should not be in {braces like these} and should not
include the date of the boilerplate. So:
CHANGE HISTORY:
2009-03-06 Proposed creation of comp.lang.newlisp.
2009-03-12 Changed name to comp.lang.lisp.newlisp;
revised newsgroups line.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Benjamin L.Russell
news.groups.proposals]
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:24:40 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Note: This is being crossposted to comp.lang.lisp as the proponent
>should have discussed splitting out newLISP discussion among the Usenet
>LISP community prior to starting the RFD process.
>
>It is crossposted to news.groups and not news.groups.proposals because
>there is no valid reason messages to the unmoderated LISP group should
>be subject to moderation.
>
>Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
>
>I take it when I requested that you suspend this RFD until discussion
>was thoroughly hashed out in comp.lang.lisp, and you stated that you
>agreed to it, you weren't being sincere.
>
>That is most unfortunate.
I received a message from an administrative member of
news.groups.proposals noting that you had redirected the thread from
news.groups.proposals to news.groups (being new to creating a
newsgroup, I had thought that the same people read both news.groups
and news.groups.proposals, and hadn't realized the significance of the
difference at first), and that while the board member felt obligated
to read news.groups.proposals, that person didn't feel obligated to
read news.groups.
Therefore, I promised to try to move the discussion back to
news.groups.proposals, but then discovered that so many messages had
been posted to the first RFD on news.groups and comp.lang.lisp that
that was, by then, impossible with that RFD.
Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
back to news.groups.proposals.
Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>>Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the Scheme programming language,
>
>You didn't crosspost either RFD to this newsgroup.
This is not true. I posted the first RFD to comp.lang.scheme as well
on March 10, 2009, at 12:18 PM (see
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/f6c5066346672b00#).
>>If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
>>issues related to the newLISP programming language, including
>>announcements. Announcements posted on comp.lang.lisp.newlisp should
>>include a prefix of either "[ANN]" or "[ANNOUNCE]" in the subject
>>header.
>
>This doesn't belong in RATIONALE.
IIRC, I put it in RATIONALE because the boilerplate I had copied it
from originally had it in RATIONALE.
>>CHARTER:
>>comp.lang.lisp.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
>>of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>>Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
>>multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
>>related to the newLISP programming language.
>
>In programming, is there a technical difference between semantics and
>syntax? I'm not a programmer, so I don't know.
Of course there is. Syntax tells us about how a code fragment is
written; semantics tells us about how it behaves. According to the
textbook _Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation_ (see
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04-26/),
by Shriram Krishnamurthi, quoted from pages 3 to 4:
>Virtually every language consists of
>
>. a peculiar syntax,
>
>. some behavior associated with each syntax,
>
>. numerous useful libraries, and
>
>. a collection of idioms that programmers of that language use.
>
>[...]
>
>The first insignificant attribute is the syntax. Syntaxes are highly sensitive topics,
>but in the end, they don_$B!G_(Bt tell us very much about a program_$B!G_(Bs behavior.
>
>[...]
>
> [W]e will focus on the behavior associated with syntax, namely the semantics
>of programming languages. In popular culture, people like to say _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B, which is a kind of
>put-down: it implies that their correspondent is quibbling over minor details of meaning in a jesuitical way.
>But communication is all about meaning: even if you and I use different words to mean the same thing, we
>understand one another; but if we use the same word to mean different things, great confusion results. In
>this study, therefore, we will wear the phrase _$B!H_(BIt_$B!G_(Bs just semantics!_$B!I_(B as a badge of honor, because semantics
>leads to discourse which (we hope) leads to civilization.
> Just semantics. That_$B!G_(Bs all there is.
That is the distinction.
>>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
>>suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
>
>Don't put cute statement in boilerplate, please.
I didn't add it there; it was there from the original boilerplate.
>1) Do not ban spam on a per-newsgroup basis. If you see spam on your
>News server, it's not because it's allowed in the groups you use. It's
>because the server doesn't implement countermeasures, which affect ALL
>newsgroups, not just groups with spam bans in charters.
>
>2) State, plainly, that binaries are banned. It's that simple.
>
>3) Direct advertising has no definition, so don't say that. A few
>servers have TOS/AUP banning advertisement, so sometimes an advertising
>ban may be enforceable, but not if you make up terms.
How about the following alternative statement:
>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. Binaries are prohibited.
>Meta-discussion of this newsgroup within this newsgroup is discouraged;
>post meta-discussion threads in a meta-newsgroup. Meta-discussion of what
>discussion belongs in this newsgroup, and what discussion does not, is
>discouraged; the point of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to the
>newLISP programming langauge, not to discuss what discussion belongs in this
>newsgroup; post thread of meta-discussion of discussion in a meta-discussion of
>discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of any of the above, or
>meta-discussion of such meta-discussion, or meta-discussion of meta-discussion
>of such meta-discussion, and so forth, is prohibited; post any of the above in
>the appropriate meta-discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of
>this paragraph is prohibited.
>>DISTRIBUTION:
>>This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>>
>> news.groups.proposals
>> news.groups
>> comp.lang.lisp
>> comp.lang.scheme
>
>Couldn't you proofread something as critical as the distribution? You
>failed to crosspost to two of those newsgroups.
Sorry about that. There was a problem with the NNTP servers, which
refused to post a message with too many recipients (I had also been
BCC'ing myself to four different e-mail accounts, and apparently, the
combination of several newsgroups and several e-mail addresses caused
my post to be rejected). I then reduced the list, and resent the
post, forgetting that I needed to change this portion as well. The
next time I send out any RFD, I'll double-check this portion.
>>CHANGE HISTORY:
>>{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
>>{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
>>{2009-03-12 2nd RFD}
>
>And that's the second time you've misstated the change history. The
>dates are wrong. You copied a comment about the revision history of the
>boilerplate itself, sheesh.
The dates reflect when the RFD's were initially submitted, not when
they were actually posted. Both of the RFD's were initially rejected
before they were reposted and accepted. By then, the dates had become
unsynchronized.
Again, I probably should have double-checked this portion after my
initial RFD's were rejected and then resubmitted. Sorry about the
confusion again; I'll be sure to double-check this portion the next
time I submit any RFD.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
Dave Sill
>
> Since a number of people had pointed out areas of improvement for the
> first RFD, I then thought to kill two birds with one stone by
> submitting a revised RFD as a second RFD. This main purpose was to
> try to satisfy the administrators by trying to move the discussion
> back to news.groups.proposals.
The B8MB never asked you to move the discussion back to news.groups.
> Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
> newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's? It's impossible to keep you and
> the administrators happy at the same time. If I satisfy you, then
> they say something about it, and if I satisfy them, then you say
> something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
Nobody has flamed you for not discussing the proposal in NGP. All we've
said is that it's possible for us to miss discussion that takes place in
news.groups because some of us use killfiles there. All that's required
of you is to follow the discussion in NGP. If you choose to follow it in
NG as well, that's great, but "satisfying" news.groupies isn't part of
the process.
The only thing standing in the way of your proposal, as far as I'm
concerned, is that it lacks support. I'd like to see 10-15 people
posting to NGP saying they'd use the group. So far I think I've seen
two. That translates to a NO vote.
-Dave
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<09rjr496014b214bq...@4ax.com>:
> ... In popular culture, people like to say "It's just semantics!",
> which is a kind of put-down: it implies that their correspondent
> is quibbling over minor details of meaning in a jesuitical way.
And we all can agree that jesuitry is the standard by
which all meaningless quibbling is to be measured. :o)
>>Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
>>and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. Binaries are prohibited.
>>Meta-discussion of this newsgroup within this newsgroup is discouraged;
>>post meta-discussion threads in a meta-newsgroup. Meta-discussion of what
>>discussion belongs in this newsgroup, and what discussion does not, is
>>discouraged; the point of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to the
>>newLISP programming langauge, not to discuss what discussion belongs in this
>>newsgroup; post thread of meta-discussion of discussion in a meta-discussion of
>>discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of any of the above, or
>>meta-discussion of such meta-discussion, or meta-discussion of meta-discussion
>>of such meta-discussion, and so forth, is prohibited; post any of the above in
>>the appropriate meta-discussion-level-specific newsgroup. Meta-discussion of
>>this paragraph is prohibited.
Funny, but not any better than the original.
Notice that news.admin.peering used the same language you did:
News.admin.peering is an unmoderated group where news server
administrators may request or offer peering with other news servers.
Queries regarding connectivity problems and server closing
announcements are also permitted. Discussions on how to best pick
peers (at random or via some plan) is also on-topic. Discussions
regarding hierarchy propagation may be permitted (however, also see
"news.admin.hierarchies").
Issues regarding spam or network abuse are better posted to the
"news.admin.net-abuse.*" groups.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.).
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.announce.newgroups/msg/820af3476ed8e293?hl=en&dmode=source>
There were no objections to that language in December. It is
adequate for the purposes of an unmoderated group.
>Sorry about that. There was a problem with the NNTP servers, which
>refused to post a message with too many recipients (I had also been
>BCC'ing myself to four different e-mail accounts, and apparently, the
>combination of several newsgroups and several e-mail addresses caused
>my post to be rejected). I then reduced the list, and resent the
>post, forgetting that I needed to change this portion as well. The
>next time I send out any RFD, I'll double-check this portion.
Next time, you may send the post by e-mail to:
news-announ...@moderators.isc.org
or
You still must not exceed five (5) newsgroups in the
"Newsgroups: " field.
The distribution list and the "Newsgroups: " field
should match each other.
>The dates reflect when the RFD's were initially submitted, not when
>they were actually posted. Both of the RFD's were initially rejected
>before they were reposted and accepted. By then, the dates had become
>unsynchronized.
No big deal.
I decided to post an imperfect version of your RFD
rather than return it to you again for further editing.
Meanwhile, the problem I see with the RFD is in none
of these small details. The big problem is finding
more support from folks who care about newlisp and
who would like to have a Usenet newsgroup dedicated
to it. A newsgroup with no news is no fun. If you
haven't got a core group of backers for the proposal,
the group isn't going to be well used.
Doug Freyburger
> {SECOND} REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.lisp.newlisp
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.lisp.newlisp.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE:
> For your newsgroups file:
> comp.lang.lisp.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
> There is a "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum
> 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM
> (Tokyo time). However, the forum is set up so that anything posted
> can conceivably be deleted afterwards, and requires use of a browser;
> however, many USENET users object to a Web-based discussion forum for
> programming language discussion because of the possibility of
> moderation. I would like to promote discussion of various issues
> related to the programming language newLISP on an unmoderated forum.
There are both technical and social objections to doing
gateways between web boards and newsgroups. Among
the technical reasons is web boards are owned and so
potentially moderated and how to deal with that in an
unmoderated newsgroup. Among the social reasons
are the differing posting styles and the "forever September"
memories of new posters when large ISPs came on line.
I've gradually come to think it's worth the price anyways.
I've been on UseNet since the early 1980s and while
groups come and go and ISPs come and go UseNet
survives. It even has archives that survive. I've also been
on web boards since the late 1990s and they tend to
come and go without archives.
It will of course be resisted by old timers but I think doing
gateways between web boards and newsgroups can give
the advantages of both to discussion groups and give new
life to newsgroup traffic. It has the potential to be as large
an impact as the large ISPs arrriving on UseNet and would
definitely be a strange experience.
I would love to see the newlisp group be an experiment to
see how it works. I for one expect old time UseNet folks
to complain about context quoting and such and figure it
will be a part of the exercise.
The main objection to the group has been traffic currently
on UseNet. Gateway would handle that. Cooperation
would be needed with the web board owner. Existing
software would be needed or new software written.
Thomas Lee
<e4034dfe-ea1b-4259...@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> writes
>I've gradually come to think it's worth the price anyways. I've been on
>UseNet since the early 1980s and while groups come and go and ISPs come
>and go UseNet survives. It even has archives that survive. I've also
>been on web boards since the late 1990s and they tend to come and go
>without archives.
>
I'm a relative newbie, having discovered newsgroup in the late 1980s,
but I agree with this analysis.
In my professional life, I use a set of newsgroups that are gatewayed to
HTTP. This is a fantastic resource as it enables me to keep an archive,
and it means the users can post and read when stuck behind draconian
firewalls that block port 119 (NNTP). I travel a lot and am regularly
stuck - but the gateway feature provides me with HTH access when I
really need it, and NNTP access the rest of the time.
>It will of course be resisted by old timers but I think doing gateways
>between web boards and newsgroups can give the advantages of both to
>discussion groups and give new life to newsgroup traffic.
For groups based around personal interests etc, a gateway feature can be
useful as long as you can agree how to deal with some of the issues that
arise (moderation as well as the extra features some web boards use such
as voting, etc that do not translate back to NNTP). For those groups
that are directly relevant to my professional life, the gateway is a
must have.
> It has the potential to be as large an impact as the large ISPs
>arrriving on UseNet and would definitely be a strange experience.
Indeed.
>I would love to see the newlisp group be an experiment to see how it
>works. I for one expect old time UseNet folks to complain about
>context quoting and such and figure it will be a part of the exercise.
I would love to see this become the norm. The old curmudgeons will
complain anyway so that's nothing new. And who knows, some of their
complaints may have some valid points! :-)
>The main objection to the group has been traffic currently on UseNet.
>Gateway would handle that. Cooperation would be needed with the web
>board owner. Existing software would be needed or new software written.
Agreed - but we still need some minimum level of support before the
group can be created. That level has not been reached, so far as I am
concerned anyway.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee
Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> writes
>Meanwhile, the problem I see with the RFD is in none of these small
>details. The big problem is finding more support from folks who care
>about newlisp and who would like to have a Usenet newsgroup dedicated
>to it. A newsgroup with no news is no fun. If you haven't got a core
>group of backers for the proposal, the group isn't going to be well used.
Like Martin and Dave, the only obstacle to this group is a lack of
support. Like Dave, I would want to see a minimum number of supporting
posts before I can vote Yes. At present, the level of support is below
that and, like Dave, currently translates to a NO vote. Drum up more
support would be my suggestion.
Thomas Lee
L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>Why do you and the administrators need to keep fighting about which
>newsgroups get to discuss the RFD's?
When the Big-8 Management Board was created, we made some changes in the
way newsgroup management was carried out. Sadly, some folks wanted to go
back the old ways and take pretty much every chance to make the point.
Sadly, sometimes they flame the proponent, i.e. you, in some mistaken
belief that they are doing "the right thing".
> It's impossible to keep you and the administrators happy at the same
>time.
You have two important constituencies: the folks who want the new groups
(and on whose behalf you are proposing a new group, and the B8MB who are
the ones who decide for/against the proposal. You are, of course, free
to post and discuss in news.groups but most proponents tend to get a
pretty poor reception there (it seems because some folks flame because
they can).
The place the B8MB looks for the discussion is here, not news.groups.
You are free to post there, but I suspect you will not get a great
reception, as I think you have already discovered. If you want to carry
on the discussions in news.groups, or even just lurk there, feel free.
There are sometimes some good points made there - but don't feel
obliged.
> If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
(i.e. here).
Steve Bonine
this morning looking for support for this proposal. Other than
<slrngrfuah....@askin-17.linkpendium.com> from Brian Leverich
who said he "would follow" the newsgroup, I found none. The consensus
in comp.lang.lisp appears to be that there is no need for a split given
the current traffic level in the group.
As others have pointed out, perhaps there is an opportunity here to
explore a web-to-news gateway. The fact that there is a robust web
forum doesn't translate into any Usenet discussion unless there's
actually a gateway. On the other hand, the success of the gmane groups
in areas like OpenOffice suggest potential for this approach. It would
require commitment on someone's part to actually implement the facility,
and cooperation from the owner of the web forum, but would improve the
discussion environment if successful.
Adam H. Kerman
>Benjamin L.Russell <DekuDe...@Yahoo.com> writes
>>If I satisfy you, then they say something about it, and if I satisfy
>>them, then you say something about it. Either way, I get flamed.
>I would sincerely hope that no one is flaming you here and that you get
>no flames at all from anyone in the B8MB. You have received advice and
>from the mails I've seen that was intended as helpful and definitely not
>a flame. As for the abuse in news.groups, many proponents ignore it,
>preferring to discuss the proposal rationally in news.groups.proposals
>(i.e. here).
The proponent has received no abuse in news.groups, merely helpful
advice. That there's no support from either the Usenet LISP community
nor those posting to the Web board that the proponent pointed out
earlier isn't abuse. That several members of the Usenet LISP community
have stated that the existing newsgroup is appropriate for newLISP
discussion is not abuse. That this very same issue came up a few weeks
ago when there was a group proposed for common LISP, then quickly
withdrawn, is valuable advice.
Pointing out to Mr. Russell that Usenet discussion of newLISP is
negligible is not abuse.
Mr. Russell was not flamed, not even once. This has been an extremely
civil discussion.
Kathy Morgan
> In my professional life, I use a set of newsgroups that are gatewayed to
> HTTP. This is a fantastic resource as it enables me to keep an archive,
> and it means the users can post and read when stuck behind draconian
> firewalls that block port 119 (NNTP). I travel a lot and am regularly
> stuck - but the gateway feature provides me with HTH access when I
> really need it, and NNTP access the rest of the time.
Do you know what software is used and/or where it is available?
So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
to the web forum.
--
Kathy, member of B8MB but speaking only for myself
Tim Skirvin
> So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
> me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
> to the web forum.
I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://wiki.killfile.org/ Skirv's Homepage
Thomas Lee
<kmo...@spamcop.net> writes
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In my professional life, I use a set of newsgroups that are gatewayed to
>> HTTP. This is a fantastic resource as it enables me to keep an archive,
>> and it means the users can post and read when stuck behind draconian
>> firewalls that block port 119 (NNTP). I travel a lot and am regularly
>> stuck - but the gateway feature provides me with HTH access when I
>> really need it, and NNTP access the rest of the time.
>
>Do you know what software is used and/or where it is available?
No - but I can ask. I'm pretty sure it's a homegrown project and not
distributable.
>So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
>me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
>to the web forum.
NewLisp even - but agreed!
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<GdhWIQgR...@mail.psp.co.uk>:
>>So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
>>me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
>>to the web forum.
>NewLisp even - but agreed!
The proponent doesn't seem to be part of the group that
runs the web forum, so I'm not confident that he can
deliver on the proposal to gate the newsgroup to the
forum.
Gatewaying is a great idea. I favor the creation of newsgroups
to support technical developments. In this particular case,
I don't see a nucleus of interested Usenet users who would
help to make the group a success.
Marty
--
Member, Big-8 Management Board--but speaking only for myself
For more information, see http://www.big-8.org
Tim Skirvin
>> So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
>> me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
>> to the web forum.
> I'm probably going to vote in favor of it.
Since a couple of people have asked:
The name is good. The idea is good. There may not be enough
leadership, but given that the other two ideas are there, I don't care
that much. I'd rather see the proponent spend his energy on trying to
promote the group rather than spending time comprehending the politics of
this process.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Dr. Brian Leverich
> The name is good. The idea is good. There may not be enough
> leadership, but given that the other two ideas are there, I don't care
> that much. I'd rather see the proponent spend his energy on trying to
> promote the group rather than spending time comprehending the politics of
> this process.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
Apart from the fact that I'm personally interested in this
group, writing as a news administrator Tim just hit on the
things I care about: good idea and good name.
It is possible to cause damage by splintering existing groups
and littering the namespace with so many moribund groups that
users can't find an active group even with the modern readers,
but my gut tells me it would take creation of new groups at a
rate of ~100/month to cause that kind of problem in finite time.
And, of course, the servers wouldn't care (in a technical sense)
if you created 1,000 groups/month.
Since we aren't even *beginning* to flirt with that kind of a
creation rate, I think Tim's absolutely on target as to what
should be the height of the bar associated with getting new
groups created.
Cheers, B.
Benjamin L.Russell
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:09:47 CST, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in
><GdhWIQgR...@mail.psp.co.uk>:
>
>>>So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
>>>me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
>>>to the web forum.
>
>>NewLisp even - but agreed!
>
>The proponent doesn't seem to be part of the group that
>runs the web forum, so I'm not confident that he can
>deliver on the proposal to gate the newsgroup to the
>forum.
>
>Gatewaying is a great idea. I favor the creation of newsgroups
>to support technical developments. In this particular case,
>I don't see a nucleus of interested Usenet users who would
>help to make the group a success.
There was actually a favorable response by one reader on
the newLISP Web board (the "newLISP Fan Club") in response to my
forwarding there yesterday of someone's suggestion of establishing a
Web board-newsgroup gateway ( see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15068&sid=fc8269bae4e6b5d28d0bf75ae1358702#15068),
as follows:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 8:48 PM, "unixtechie" <address unavailable> wrote:
>Post subject: DekuDekuplex is right
>
>Unfortunately, the two long-timers on this forum fail to appreciate one
>important factor, that of VISIBILITY and CONNECTEDNESS.
>
>In a different place I have been an active participant in a very tightly
>connected "universe" of blogs. The site is not just a hosting of individual
>blogs, and not simply allows visitors' commentaries in those blogs, but
>CONNECTS them through a "friends reel" of a sort. With a huge mass of
>users this blogging engine becomes a qualitatively different beast,
>completely different from pseudo-blogs by the likes of university professors
>(which do not typically allow even commentaries) or political semi-official
>propaganda men. Connectedness turns the site into a kind of universe in
>which news propagate according to new laws (which I tried to figure out
>and plot as huge graphs with hundreds of thousands nodes).
>
>Newlisp is vastly underappreciated because it LACKS VISIBILITY.
>
>I (it seems) convinced Lutz to advertise on www.freshmeat.net, the largest
>site for open source software, but still, in spite of my prodding, he does not
>do it aggressively (i.e. with each addition of library scripts etc); he was even
>talking about splitting announcements in two, one for newlisp proper, and the
>other one for libs.
>
>Now we see the sort of semi-resistance from newlispers who got used to
>cloistered existence, and a tiny handful of friends on a remote and
>disconnected forum. Nope. When my blog (general interest, non-programming)
>on the site I talked about reached 1700 subscribers, I became a news
>organization of my own and by making searches I could track the texts I
>created and see how much they spread over the Internet and are amplified
>with lots of people picking the topic and developing it further.
>
>[...]
>
>So, whether as a separate newsgroup or as a constant presence in the most
>populated LISP group on Usenet, newlisp should exist, and I would applaud the
>efforts of the first poster and fully agree with his appreciation of newlisp as
>having a good potential to become very popular scripting language due to its size
>and self-containedness on top of the powerful capabilities of lisp.
>
>[...]
So, apparently at least one reader there is interested in the idea of
a gateway.
I'm going to respond to his opinion and see if it is possible to
expand support for the proposed comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup on
the newLISP Fan Club.
Given unixtechie's favorable response, it may be possible to convince
him to participate in newLISP discussion on USENET. Furthermore,
since he claims to be "an active participant in a very tightly
connected "universe" of blogs," it may be possible to ask for his
assistance in gathering additional support.
Admittedly, this is not much of a basis yet, but this is a new
response that materialized in reply to my post on that Web forum, so
with additional posts there, perhaps I can obtain further favorable
responses. I'll post some new messages there and write back here
shortly on the response (or lack of one) that I receive.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
Benjamin L.Russell
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:09:47 CST, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in
><GdhWIQgR...@mail.psp.co.uk>:
>
>>>So far I've not seen enough support for a newlist newsgroup to persuade
>>>me to vote in favor of it; I might well change my mind if it were gated
>>>to the web forum.
>
>>NewLisp even - but agreed!
>
>The proponent doesn't seem to be part of the group that
>runs the web forum, so I'm not confident that he can
>deliver on the proposal to gate the newsgroup to the
>forum.
>
>Gatewaying is a great idea. I favor the creation of newsgroups
>to support technical developments. In this particular case,
>I don't see a nucleus of interested Usenet users who would
>help to make the group a success.
There has been another response (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15069#15069), by a
user called "newdep," to the suggestion of establishing a gateway on
the newLISP Fan Club (albeit lukewarm--this user doesn't mind
discussing newLISP on USENET, but thinks that newLISP is better
promoted by having users use it on servers, rather than by spreading
discussion).
I have followed up (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15072#15072) on the
responses by both unixtechie and newdep in suggesting that unixtechie
voice his support directly in this thread, and by stating that
discussion is necessary to attract users to write the interesting
applications.
I'll follow up here shortly on further developments in that thread.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
Benjamin L.Russell
When I tried to follow the advice of one respondent here in "guid[ing]
the discussion" on comp.lang.lisp by comparing newLISP with Clojure,
the situation rapidly deteriorated into a flame war, with one
respondent there accusing me of an "abuse of Usenet" (see
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/808aaf2cc9979344):
On 27 Mar 2009 08:51:39 GMT, Tamas K Papp <tkp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:25:41 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
>
>> Then it seemed that in order to have the newsgroup created, I needed to
>> promote discussion, which required promoting the topic, which required
>> promoting the language, so I wound up promoting what I could about the
>> language. Little did I realize what I was getting myself into at
>> first....
>
>Thanks for admitting that you are only trying to generate discussion
>to have a newLisp ng created, not because you had something to
>discuss. I have bookmarked this article, and will be happy to refer
>to it when the issue of a newLisp ng is raised again (if ever).
>
>I hope that you realize that all your attempts to generate gratuitous
>"discussion" about newLisp will be recognized as an abuse of Usenet,
>and your proposals to create a newLisp ng will be judged accordingly.
Of course, I wrote back a rebuttal, stating that I was following the
advice given by a member here, but at this point, given the lack of
support from Lutz, the creator of newLISP, toward helping to create a
Web board-newsgroup gateway, and the hostile attitude of many members
of comp.lang.lisp toward newLISP, I feel that continuing this RFD at
this point is pointless.
Therefore, I wish at least temporarily to withdraw this RFD, until
some (possible) point in the future when the newLISP programming
language performs competitively with other Lisp dialects in the views
of the members of the USENET Lisp community.
Thank you for your cooperation, and I look forward possibly to working
with you at some point in the future on either this or a different
newsgroup proposal.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<qrgps41isfjddhon7...@4ax.com>:
>> ... I hope that you realize that all your attempts to generate gratuitous
>>"discussion" about newLisp will be recognized as an abuse of Usenet,
>>and your proposals to create a newLisp ng will be judged accordingly.
>Of course, I wrote back a rebuttal, stating that I was following the
>advice given by a member here ...
"Abuse of Usenet," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I don't consider your efforts at all abusive.
> ... but at this point, given the lack of
>support from Lutz, the creator of newLISP, toward helping to create a
>Web board-newsgroup gateway, and the hostile attitude of many members
>of comp.lang.lisp toward newLISP, I feel that continuing this RFD at
>this point is pointless.
Agreed. You need a group of like-minded enthusiasts--people who
like both Usenet and newLISP--to make the proposal viable.
>Therefore, I wish at least temporarily to withdraw this RFD, until
>some (possible) point in the future when the newLISP programming
>language performs competitively with other Lisp dialects in the views
>of the members of the USENET Lisp community.
No problem.
>Thank you for your cooperation, and I look forward possibly to working
>with you at some point in the future on either this or a different
>newsgroup proposal.
Sounds good.