RESULT: comp.lang.php passes 177:11
David E. Smith
unmoderated group comp.lang.php passes 177:11
There were 177 YES votes and 11 NO votes, for a total of 188 valid votes.
There were 2 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted. If no
serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the moderator of
news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly thereafter.
Newsgroups line:
comp.lang.php PHP, server side scripting.
Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 30 Jun 2002.
[ Votetaker remarks: This was a re-vote. The first vote was cancelled due
to the distribution of pre-marked ballots. ]
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about the
proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Ian Fette <ife...@comcast.net>
Votetaker: David E. Smith <da...@technopagan.org>
RATIONALE: comp.lang.php
An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used, and there is also
an alt.comp.lang.php group in existence. Not all servers carry alt.*
newsgroups, however, essentially splitting the PHP Usenet community.
Almost all news servers carry the comp.lang.* groups, which would make the
group more accessible to users, in addition to unifying the two "Usenet
PHP factions." Furthermore, every respected programming language has a
group under comp.lang.*. PHP has matured into a respected (and powerful)
language widely in use. As such, a group in the comp.lang.* hierarchy
seems appropriate at this time. Finally, posts in comp.lang.* groups are
retained longer than posts in alt.* groups on many servers, another reason
that a switch to a comp.lang.* group would benefit the PHP community.
CHARTER: comp.lang.php
comp.lang.php is intended to be a global forum for the discussion of
issues involving PHP. The ultimate goal is to create a relaxed yet helpful
environment in which people can seek answers to general questions about
PHP, specific questions regarding specific PHP functions or code snippets,
or topical questions.
The posting of binaries is generally frowned upon. When posting a specific
question about a piece of code or a function that you are having a problem
with, please include in your post a section of code as small as possible
that illustrates the problem you are having.
A group alt.php.sql also currently exists, but is less frequently used
than alt.php. Since database connectivity is a large part of PHP, it will
be considered topical in comp.lang.php. A comp.lang.php.sql is not deemed
necessary at the current point in time, however may be proposed at a later
point should the need arise.
END CHARTER.
DISTRIBUTION:
Pointers directing readers to this CFV were posted in the following groups:
de.comp.lang.php
fr.comp.lang.php
comp.lang.php Final Vote Ack
NOTE: This is not [to be used as] a mailing list. The email addresses
are posted only to help verify the interest poll. Thank you. The "real"
vote list can be recovered by piping the list below through sed s/~/@/g .
comp.lang.php Final Vote Ack
Voted Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$thomas/98b$~mail.paradise-green.co.uk Thomas Sandford
adia~hellug.gr Alexandros Diamantidis
alandrums~yahoo.com Alan
amcmicha~Princeton.EDU Andrew McMichael
andy~andyh.org Andy Hassall
andy~microwinder.com Andrew Conner
anthony~ventimiglia.org Anthony Ventimiglia
arussell~apexsoftware.freeserve.co.uk Alex Russell
avbentem~hetnet.nl Arjan van Bentem
baloo~ursine.dyndns.org Baloo Ursidae
beyond~xs4all.nl beyond
bob~cube33.com Fred</DIV>
bouvin~daimi.au.dk Niels Olof Bouvin
bpalmer~leland.stanford.edu Brian Palmer
brlspam~yahoo.com Bruce Lewis
bruce-baugh~spiretech.com Bruce Baugh
bt~csfps.de Volker Borchert
btpoole~nortelnetworks.com Benjamin Poole</FONT>
bwm~bwm.org.uk Barry Martin
cerberus2k~blueyonder.co.uk John Mitchell
chc~alussinan.org Christophe Cuq
chris.bewick~ntlworld.com Chris Bewick
chris~stallion.oz.au Christopher Biggs
chriseb~ukshells.co.uk Chris Ebenezer
chuck~cycletourist.com Chuck Anderson
cind0revs~toadmail.toad.net Arthur J Mongan
cl.php-vote~abulman.co.uk Alister
cmeerw_vote~fastrun.at Christof Meerwald
d.cardonne~univers-cite.qc.ca Danny Cardonne
dansachs~panix.com Daniel Sachs
davep~davep.org Dave Pearson
dball~bnb-lp.com David Ball
dc~panix.com David W. Crawford
devin~thecabal.org Devin L. Ganger
devnull~vianet.ca Trevor Tymchuk
dfrost~maths.tcd.ie Dermot Frost
djm~zamang.co.uk David McCormack
dpc~ipp.mpg.de David Coster
dvandeun~vub.ac.be Dirk van Deun
e~dronkert.net Ewoud Dronkert
earthscibbs~rogers.com David Ramalho
ed~eddaniel.demon.co.uk Ed Daniel
egorr~scanalytics.com Eric Gorr
Ekkehard~Uthke.de Ekkehard Uthke
elainet~vianet.ca Elaine Timms
ellis~spinics.net Rick Ellis
eltehaem~poczta.onet.pl Wojciech Gdela
elucero~inet.cl Eduardo Lucero Muller
equus~welsh-cob.cix.co.uk Alan Chapman
ermannov~netscape.net Ermanno Iannacci
eugenem~ix.netcom.com Eugene Mah
fortiz~lacorona.com.mx Fernando Ortiz
franck.t~netcourrier.com Franck T.
gbx~email.si Gorazd Bozic
george~pcb-designer.com George H. Patrick, III
ggw~wolves.durham.nc.us G.Wolfe Woodbury
gherbert~retro.com George William Herbert
gildseth~start.no Tommy Gildseth
girvandw~freeuk.com David Girvan
gluds~yahoo.com Josep Domenech
gouders~et.bocholt.fh-ge.de Dirk Gouders
gregor.herrmann~comodo.priv.at gregor herrmann
grund~h-a-s-e.com Wolfgang Grund
guillaume.jany~wanadoo.fr Guillaume JANY
harder~ifa.au.dk Jesper Harder
henkp~cs.uu.nl Henk Penning
herveus~radix.net Michael Houghton
hhSPAM~fsck.dk Henrik Hansen
Humphrey.Clerx~eurocontrol.int Humphrey Clerx
ian.michael~impub.co.uk Ian Michael
iarenuno~eteo.mondragon.edu Ignacio Arenaza
ifette~comcast.net Ian Fette
irwin~stat.ohio-state.edu Mark Irwin
jaed~jaedworks.com Jeanne A. E. DeVoto
james.bursa~strcprstskrzkrk.co.uk James Bursa
JamesL~Lugoj.com James Logajan
jani.percic~arih.si Jani Percic
jason~devnetwork.net Jason
jeffhung~ms44.url.com.tw Chien-Chou Hung
jeffrey~carlyle.org Jeffrey Coleman Carlyle
jell~clari.net.au Jelle Jager
jennifer~material.demon.co.uk Jennifer Moore
jennine~7d.com Jennine Townsend
jgd~cix.co.uk John Dallman
jim_hayter~hotmail.com Jim Hayter
jmv16~cornell.edu Jeffrey M. Vinocur
joe~sfbooks.com Joe Bernstein
john~thegreys.co.uk John Grey
johnl~iecc.com John R. Levine
jolomo~olagrande.net Joe Morris
jon~alpineinternet.com Jon Abernathy
josh~joshghiloni.net Joshua Ghiloni
jphillips~jpgonline.com Joe Phillips
js~saltmine.radix.net John Schmidt
julesd~erols.com Jules Dubois
julien.lecomte~voonoo.net Julien=20
kees.de.bruin~altium.nl Kees de Bruin
ken.gregg~rwre.com Ken Gregg
kennethf~stud.ntnu.no Kenneth Frank Salvesen
kenrbnsn1~rcn.com Ken Robinson
kevin~pricetrak.com Kevin Thorpe
Kimmo.Rinteela~uta.fi Kimmo Rinteelä
les.lytollis~morse.com Lez Lytollis
lfrigault~teaser.fr Laurent FRIGAULT
mb~markus-berthold.de Markus Berthold
me~ifihada.com jbp
mefju~venus.ci.uw.edu.pl Maciej Ostaszewski
megazone~megazone.org MegaZone
mhess~miraclec.com Michael A. Hess
michaeno~stud.ntnu.no Michael Norum
mohrmann~gmx.de Bjoern Mohrmann
moj~alertir.com Mats-Olof Sander
montanab~gower.net Bill Montana
mrm~lerctr.org Ray Mullins
mythaddeus~attbi.com D. Scaldini-Klimm
neomal~ginosko.net Neomal Weerakoon
newt_e~blueyonder.co.uk Neil James =
orjan_f~post.utfors.se D6rjan Forslund
p.henkel~zonnet.nl Peter Henkelsoft
panchjr~hotmail.com J Panchen
patrick~pataltman.com Patrick Altman <patrick~pataltman.com>
paul.kappeler~cerberus.ch SPAN
Paul.Smith~cantos.com SPAN=20
pauls~etext.org Paul Southworth
paul_greathouse~hp.com Paul Greathouse
pblaer~panix.com Paul Blaer
pgl~yoyo.org Peter Lowe
pnlarsson~telia.com Niklas Larsson
psmyth~gmx.net Peter Smyth
pt97fjo~student.bth.se Fredrik Jonson
r.mariotti~financialdatacorp.com Robert Mariotti
rabower~stny.rr.com Dick Bower
rainer.ginsberg~basf-it-services.com Rainer Ginsberg
ralph.j~excite.com Ralph Johnston
rcpj~panix.com Pierre Jelenc
reg~reva.co.uk john moylan (jfp)
rel+vote~lipo.at0.net Roland E. Lipovits
ric~digital-animations.com Richard Cooper
Richard.Cook~Colorado.EDU Richard Cook
roman.maurer~amis.net Roman Maurer
ron.barnett~NTLWorld.com Ron Barnett
rosie~dozyrosy.com Rosemary Powell
rra~stanford.edu Russ Allbery
sbfaulds~ihug.co.nz Stuart Brodie Faulds
scott~zsori.com Scott Zsori
shevek~onlinehome.de Harald Seute
shiva~io.com Earl Cooley
shodan~pandorasstrike.fsnet.co.uk Anthony =
shyamal.prasad~ericsson.com Shyamal Prasad
simon~darkmere.gen.nz Simon Lyall
smlucas~flashmail.com Steven Lucas
snevel+usenet~sonic.net Simeon Nevel
snow3~xs4all.nl Maarten van der Peet
spaite~apigestmed.com SPAITE
spence~panix.com Michael D. Spence
squid~panix.com Yeoh Yiu
stefan~nmg.nl Stefan Koopmanschap
steve~yelvington.com Steve Yelvington
stevenv~operamail.com Steven Vasilogianis
support~tradersparadise.com Trader's Paradise
thierry~pompo.net Thierry Thomas
toivo~ucs.uwa.edu.au Toivo Pedaste
trevor~ashdown-software.com Trevor Smith
ts~UWasa.Fi Timo Salmi
tyketto~wizard.com Brad Littlejohn
van.ette~inter.nl.net Robert-Jan van Ette
verch~panix.com Jason Verch <usenet~screwups.com>
viralbus~daimi.au.dk Thomas M. Widmann
vote-comp.lang.php~newton.digitalspace.net Philip Newton
vote2002~valiant.palfrader.org Peter Palfrader
Vulch~vulch.org Anthony Frost
walkerk~crocuta.com Kent Walker
webgeek~snarkles.net Angela Byron
wim.koorenneef~home.nl Wim Koorenneef
xavier~linkadmin.org Xavier Spriet
yadi~xtra.co.nz Amos Jeffries
zimnyzenon~interia.pl Zenobiusz Zimny
Voted No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dougbob~charter.net Brian Douglas
ernestcline~mindspring.com Ernest Cline
JEckart~mail.com John Eckart
mail~djfoulkes.fsnet.co.uk Dom Foulkes
naddy~mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber
pan~syix.com Pan
rick~bcm.tmc.edu Richard H Miller
RUSTYBLKJK~aol.com Rusty Martin
shrao~nyx.net Shrisha Rao
stainles~bga.com Dwight Brown
vpdura~hiwaay.net Vic Dura
Abstained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmprice~calweb.com John M. Price, PhD
svalbardifast~home.se Kent Persson
Votes in error
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ArtKamlet~aol.REMOVE.com Arthur Kamlet
! Ack bounced
cmosser~attbi.com Christopher M Mosser
! Ack bounced
help~dvdseason.com DVDSeason
! No ballot
news~beyond.xs4all.nl beyond
! Invalid address
not~here.com Wayne
! Invalid address
puntomaupunto_at_tin.it~example.invalid.cselt.it Maurizio Codogno
! Ack bounced
qsinagra~hotmail.com Quentin Sinagra
! No vote statement in message
root~linkadmin.org Xavier Spriet
! Invalid address
root~mauve.demon.co.uk Ian Stirling
! Invalid address
say1~tikauka.cs.waikato.ac.nz Stuart A Yeates
! Ack bounced
usenet~7d.com
! Invalid address
Adam Kerman
> RESULT
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php passes 177:11
>There were 177 YES votes and 11 NO votes, for a total of 188 valid votes.
>There were 2 abstains and 11 invalid ballots.
Goody; group number 4. This group should be removed if all the users of the
three existing alt.* groups choose not to move there discussion.
What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from this
fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic, would you all
PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can help you with the
name?
Matthew Montchalin
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|dougbob~charter.net Brian Douglas
|ernestcline~mindspring.com Ernest Cline
|JEckart~mail.com John Eckart
|mail~djfoulkes.fsnet.co.uk Dom Foulkes
|naddy~mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber
|pan~syix.com Pan
|rick~bcm.tmc.edu Richard H Miller
|RUSTYBLKJK~aol.com Rusty Martin
|shrao~nyx.net Shrisha Rao
|stainles~bga.com Dwight Brown
|vpdura~hiwaay.net Vic Dura
|
|Abstained
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|jmprice~calweb.com John M. Price, PhD
|svalbardifast~home.se Kent Persson
Hrumph. If the ballot had made its way to me, I'd have voted 'no.'
Devin L. Ganger
> What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from this
> fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic, would you all
> PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can help you with the
> name?
Because they don't have to.
Baldly, there it is.
There is no mechanism to force them to do so; therefore, anyone who gets a
bug in their ear can form any alt group they want, and if they can persuade
enough newsadmins to carry it, it'll be around forever.
Alt and the big 8 serve different constituencies, by virtue of the fact that
the machinery in place (plus the de-facto delegation of newgroup/rmgroup
authority to that machinery on so many news servers) makes big-8 groups more
suitable for those who wish to browse their newsgroup list and say, "Hey!
There's a group on PHP now!" instead of those who want to be political in
the creation process and pester their newsadmins to mess around in the
inevitable newsgroup/rmgroup wars (again, an inevitable side effect of anyone
and everyone being able to do whatever they wish in alt.*).
This is not to cast value judgements on one hierarchy or the other.
--
Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org>
Co-Admin, The cabalSASL Project ( http://sasl.thecabal.org/ )
A man, a miss, a car -- a curve,
He kissed the miss and missed the curve -- Burma Shave (1948)
Russ Allbery
> What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from
> this fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic,
> would you all PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can
> help you with the name?
I think you have badly misunderstood the nature of the alt.* hierarchy.
It's kind of funny how often the longer people spend in alt.config, the
more people want to turn alt.* into the Big Eight while still loudly
claiming that they don't like the Big Eight.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Adam H. Kerman
>>What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from
>>this fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic,
>>would you all PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can
>>help you with the name?
>I think you have badly misunderstood the nature of the alt.* hierarchy.
No, situations like this just make me want to hit my head against a brick
wall. I am well aware that no one about to propose the next badly-named alt.*
group is paying any attention and won't bother to do so in alt.config.
>It's kind of funny how often the longer people spend in alt.config, the
>more people want to turn alt.* into the Big Eight while still loudly
>claiming that they don't like the Big Eight.
Elsewhere in this endless debate, I stated that comp.* is the hierarchy
that should have been considered in the first place.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 06:10:24 -0000, Adam Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from
>>this fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic,
>>would you all PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can
>>help you with the name?
>Because they don't have to.
>Baldly, there it is.
>There is no mechanism to force them to do so; therefore, anyone who gets a
>bug in their ear can form any alt group they want, and if they can persuade
>enough newsadmins to carry it, it'll be around forever.
Yes, this is all too true.
Rebecca Ore
> Adam Kerman <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>
> > What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from
> > this fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic,
> > would you all PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can
> > help you with the name?
>
> I think you have badly misunderstood the nature of the alt.* hierarchy.
>
> It's kind of funny how often the longer people spend in alt.config, the
> more people want to turn alt.* into the Big Eight while still loudly
> claiming that they don't like the Big Eight.
I was amused to see that alt.boston.unmoderated and
alt.boston.moderated were on the new news.sexzilla.net -- sometimes
alt.config creates a backlash.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.ogoense.net
Now with annoying blinking header
Steven Lucas
news:uhvsigq...@corp.supernews.com...
> Goody; group number 4. This group should be removed if all the users of
the
> three existing alt.* groups choose not to move there discussion.
>
> What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from this
> fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic, would you
all
> PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can help you with
the
> name?
Gee, Big 8 creation is pretty much dead if a group on a completely new topic
can't get the necessary votes, and those that go the alt.* route to get a
Big 8 group can't get one because it's a dup of the alt group.
--
Crimefighter Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD
The COMPLETE Abermud List http://promisedland.betterbox.net
http://abermud.tripod.com smlucas-=<([a])>=-flashmail.com
STOP DEADLY EMAIL VIRUS SPAM! GET A DEADSPAM.COM ADDRESS!
Steven Lucas
news:ui1d9r3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Elsewhere in this endless debate, I stated that comp.* is the hierarchy
> that should have been considered in the first place.
Maybe they didn't have the votes to get the comp.lang group before making
the alt.* group. PHP hasn't been around that long.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Goody; group number 4. This group should be removed if all the users of the
>>three existing alt.* groups choose not to move there discussion.
>>What are the chances that future proponents will learn a lesson from
>>this fiasco? If you want an alt.* group for a computer-related topic,
>>would you all PLEASE discuss your draft proposal in alt.config so we can
>>help you with the name?
>Gee, Big 8 creation is pretty much dead if a group on a completely new topic
>can't get the necessary votes, and those that go the alt.* route to get a
>Big 8 group can't get one because it's a dup of the alt group.
alt.* is not a practice hierarchy. If the topic's not yet discussed on Usenet,
there's no "alt.* route" to go, either. There's only the "discuss it in the
most appropriate existing group" route.
Whatever you think of the issue of the top-level hierarchy, isn't four groups
on one topic a bit much? Or don't you get shocked till there are five groups?
Devin L. Ganger
wrote:
> alt.* is not a practice hierarchy.
Since alt.* has no rules, it's any sort of hierarchy that anyone wants to make
of it.
If it can be a joke group hierarchy or an alternative hierarchy for people who
get in a snit about whatever and want to instantly create a new group, why
can't it be a practice or trial hierarchy?
> If the topic's not yet discussed on Usenet, there's no "alt.* route" to go,
> either. There's only the "discuss it in the most appropriate existing group"
> route.
Not true. There's the "create an alt.* group and run that for a while to show
everyone there's enough usage" route.
> Whatever you think of the issue of the top-level hierarchy, isn't four groups
> on one topic a bit much? Or don't you get shocked till there are five groups?
There could be a bazillion groups on the same subject, and if they're mostly
spread around in different hierarchies, serving different needs, that's
probably a good thing.
Adam H. Kerman
>>If the topic's not yet discussed on Usenet, there's no "alt.* route" to go,
>>either. There's only the "discuss it in the most appropriate existing group"
>>route.
>Not true. There's the "create an alt.* group and run that for a while to show
>everyone there's enough usage" route.
Proponents of tens of thousands of failed alt.* groups have yet to prove
that new groups start new discussion on Usenet.
Newgroup messages don't create alt.* groups, not on most servers, nor do they
magically induce discussion should be group be created locally.
I didn't think these myths circulated around news.groups.
Incidentally, if the alt.* group isn't a failure, then that's an especially
bad reason for starting a Big 8 group. See BarB's message of last week.
>>Whatever you think of the issue of the top-level hierarchy, isn't four groups
>>on one topic a bit much? Or don't you get shocked till there are five groups?
>There could be a bazillion groups on the same subject, and if they're mostly
>spread around in different hierarchies, serving different needs, that's
>probably a good thing.
And the different needs these four groups meet are what, exactly?
Devin L. Ganger
wrote:
> Proponents of tens of thousands of failed alt.* groups have yet to prove
> that new groups start new discussion on Usenet.
Didn't claim that.
> Newgroup messages don't create alt.* groups, not on most servers, nor do they
> magically induce discussion should be group be created locally.
Didn't claim that.
> I didn't think these myths circulated around news.groups.
Only by folks who aren't reading what they're responding to.
> Incidentally, if the alt.* group isn't a failure, then that's an especially
> bad reason for starting a Big 8 group. See BarB's message of last week.
Depends on the dynamics of the group(s) in question, doesn't it?
> And the different needs these four groups meet are what, exactly?
Dunno. Obviously, though, from the vote results, enough people saw a need
for the big-8 PHP group to succeed.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Proponents of tens of thousands of failed alt.* groups have yet to prove
>>that new groups start new discussion on Usenet.
>Didn't claim that.
You're awfully disingenuous, given that you quoted my followup out of context.
Go argue by yourself.
Brian Mailman
>
> Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Proponents of tens of thousands of failed alt.* groups have yet to prove
> >>that new groups start new discussion on Usenet.
>
> >Didn't claim that.
No, you didn't, but what Adam's saying is that alt.* groups aren't on
auto-add any more and because of that, there's a chicken-and-egg
effect. Perhaps that's the basis of your statement that alt.* is a
practice hierachy? Or one of the bases?
Anyway, back to c-and-e...people don't see a group on their server's
active file so they don't know it's there and because of that they don't
ask for it to be added (indeed, many of the folks we see in alt.config
are told the group they want already exists and to ask for alt.x.y.z).
The only way to break that cycle is to have enough of a poster/user base
in place when the control message is sent.
B/
Devin L. Ganger
> No, you didn't, but what Adam's saying is that alt.* groups aren't on
> auto-add any more
By smart news admins, yes. There's still more than a few not-so-smart ones
out there, unfortunately.
> and because of that, there's a chicken-and-egg
> effect. Perhaps that's the basis of your statement that alt.* is a
> practice hierachy? Or one of the bases?
I know quite well about this effect. The approximate level of difficulty
in getting a reasonable amount of propagation for an alt.* group is about
equal to the level of difficulty involved in getting a new big 8 group,
all other factors being equal. If anything, it's probably easier to get
the big 8 group.
> The only way to break that cycle is to have enough of a poster/user base
> in place when the control message is sent.
Or to contact admins over time and get them to set the group up.
There are no easy routes to group creation anymore. There *are* alternate
routes. Adam was being awfully coy when he said that there was no "alt.*
route" to take for new proponents. There is such a route; it's a lot of
work, granted.
Adam H. Kerman
>>The only way to break that cycle is to have enough of a poster/user base
>>in place when the control message is sent.
>Or to contact admins over time and get them to set the group up.
There is no large number of administrators willing to entertain a request to
create a group from a nonuser on his network. If they were willing to do so,
they'd have created the group already when they got around to reading the
proposal in the newgroup. That is, after all, the purpose of the newgroup in
alt.*: to put the proposal in front of all the world's news administrators.
>There are no easy routes to group creation anymore. There *are* alternate
>routes. Adam was being awfully coy when he said that there was no "alt.*
>route" to take for new proponents. There is such a route; it's a lot of
>work, granted.
Huh? I wasn't speaking of "new proponents" but of proposal for newsgroups to
discuss topics that aren't being discussed on Usenet. There's no alt.* route
for that. Newgroups don't get topics discussed.
If the topic's not being discussed on Usenet, how, exactly, do you promote
the group among Usenet users? A lot of work? No; a near impossible situation.
I thought you didn't believe in the myths.
Steven Lucas
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.020701...@lab.oregonvos.net...
> |Voted No
>
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam didn't cast his no vote either...as much as he's whining about
it...smirk.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam didn't cast his no vote either...as much as he's whining about
>it...smirk.
Ah, the level of maturity around here: Take an unpopular position and get
insulted. Boy, the handful of "no" votes I've made have been called into
question. Now, I get blasted for abstaining. You people are weird.
I predict that the fourth group will fail to achieve the objectives that
the proponent set for it because he didn't obtain a consensus among those
posting on the topic to consolidate all discussion in the proposed group. As
that was what I considered to be the fundamental issue, and as I wouldn't
have any influence on getting posters to move to another group, I didn't
bother to vote.
This particular vote was irrelevant.
Brian Mailman
>
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:16:10 -0700, Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>
> By smart news admins, yes. There's still more than a few not-so-smart ones
> out there, unfortunately.
Possibly on an absolute numerical basis, but what percentage of the
number of total news admins? From everything I've read, it's
vanishingly small.
> .... If anything, it's probably easier to get the big 8 group.
I've thought so. Round up a poster base, write up a decent RFD, listen
to comments proffered and make adjustments or compromises, write up
another RFD, and take it to a vote. A bit of stress and strain on a
proponent because of the emotional tie-in, but the mechanics are easy
enough.
> > The only way to break that cycle is to have enough of a poster/user base
> > in place when the control message is sent.
>
> Or to contact admins over time and get them to set the group up.
Do admins create groups on their servers for non-users?
> There are no easy routes to group creation anymore.
Well, there's always free.* <G>
I don't think Adam's point involves _easy_ routes, it's that simply
providing a newsgroup for a topic doesn't generate discussion on a
topic. I once used this metaphor: Someone might build a luxury hotel
in the middle of the Mojave Desert, but unless he knows the guests have
made reservations it will stay empty.
alt.* is difficult to function as a practice hierarchy anymore for text
groups.
Between the auto-add process being stopped, and all the weird names
proponents come up with that break naming structure (not to mention the
typos, deliberate misspellings, and acronyms) a user/reader can't just
scan a list of newsgroups to find his interest and then post there.
I don't believe people want to move much out of the medium they are
already using--or the topic space they usually post to--which was Adam's
other objection to this proposal.
rmgroups have little or no effect, and there's no practical way to
actually remove a group (even in the Big 8, how many servers still carry
rec.pets.cats?) once it begins to propagate. Even if a once-thriving
alt.* group moves en masse to a new Big 8 group, the alt.* group still
exists, full of spam, someone looks and then hits yahoogroups to see if
there's a mailing list....
B/
Agelmar
news:ui8pidb...@corp.supernews.com...
The new comp.* group will not fail for a variety of reasons -
1. It is the logical place for people to look when looking for a group on
PHP
2. I *did* obtain a consensus a few months (2 or 3 if I recall) before
putting through the proposal in alt.php (I did not even know that
alt.comp.lang.php existed at the time, but it seems logical that that group
would want to drop the alt in the name, especially with all the multiposting
that goes on there... there also seemed to be no objections coming out of
that group from the discussions held there0
3. I have no doubt that the people will move over - it might take a bit of
persuading / posting a few "MOVE OVER NOW!!!!" messages to the old group,
but it will happen once the servers start picking it up.
-Ian (Proponent)
Adam H. Kerman
>The new comp.* group will not fail for a variety of reasons -
Go fo it; prove me wrong.
Agelmar
> Agelmar <ia...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >The new comp.* group will not fail for a variety of reasons -
>
> Go fo it; prove me wrong.
Believe me, I most certainly intend to do so ^-^
Klaas
> 3. I have no doubt that the people will move over - it might take a
> bit of persuading / posting a few "MOVE OVER NOW!!!!" messages to the
> old group, but it will happen once the servers start picking it up.
I highly advise against doing like posting "MOVE OVER NOW" messages.
That's rude, obnoxious, domineering, and likely to provoke the reverse
reaction to your intent.
-Mike
Agelmar
news:Xns92417792...@209.98.50.131...
Hey Klaas ^-^ Good to see ya.
I would not do a Move Over Now reply to every message, more like a bi-weekly
post or something like that. To be honest, there is really no reason for the
alt.* groups to still exist now that the comp.lang group is being created,
and everybody's server should carry the new group in a relatively short
period of time... too bad there is no easy way to kill an alt.* group :(
Brian Mailman
> too bad there is no easy way to kill an alt.* group :(
on the other hand, all it takes is a beer to kill a Vindaloo...
Seriously, in an unmanaged hierarchy, who do you propose to "kill" a
group? And if a group exists on the same topic but with a different
focus why should it be killed?
Rather than worry about what they are doing in other groups (as well as
seemingly trying to force users to use a particular group), why not just
make sure clp is useful to the posters who voted for it?
B/
Jay Denebeim
Look, Ian, Adam is rather, um, unique in his concerns. There's no
need to answer him.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Adam H. Kerman
>Look, Ian, Adam is rather, um, unique in his concerns. There's no
>need to answer him.
Jay's right. I'm the only person ever to raise the issue of redundant
newsgroups. Never before been mentioned.
Rebecca Ore
> There is no large number of administrators willing to entertain a request to
> create a group from a nonuser on his network. If they were willing to do so,
> they'd have created the group already when they got around to reading the
> proposal in the newgroup. That is, after all, the purpose of the newgroup in
> alt.*: to put the proposal in front of all the world's news administrators.
Gee, I dropped all alt newsgroups. If my users wanted a group and
would use it, I was happy to add it (alt.religion.anticrust comes to
mind).
I know of at least one case where a sufficiently connected proponent
got a pair of alt.* groups on a lot of servers he doesn't have
accounts with. The normal thing is that a number of friends on a
number of different servers can get groups added to all of them.
A lot of very successful alt.* groups are more social than topical.
If alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk was proposed today, I'm rather
sure it would be shot down by the usual suspects in alt.config.
--
Rebecca Ore
Adam H. Kerman
>Gee, I dropped all alt newsgroups.
Golly. That's quite a judgment, that not one would be useful to your users.
How many users on your network?
>I know of at least one case where a sufficiently connected proponent
>got a pair of alt.* groups on a lot of servers he doesn't have
>accounts with. The normal thing is that a number of friends on a
>number of different servers can get groups added to all of them.
Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
>A lot of very successful alt.* groups are more social than topical.
>If alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk was proposed today, I'm rather
>sure it would be shot down by the usual suspects in alt.config.
Excuse me: Rebecca? Under what circumstances would the typical proponent of a
joke group have ever submitted a draft proposal for review?
Devin L. Ganger
wrote:
> Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
How is it unethical for someone who is trying to get a new group
established to talk to new admins and make a convincing case to
them to add a new group to their active list?
Adam H. Kerman
>>Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
>How is it unethical for someone who is trying to get a new group
>established to talk to new admins and make a convincing case to
>them to add a new group to their active list?
Maybe some day you'll grow up and learn how to quote properly.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 17:02:14 -0000, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
>
> How is it unethical for someone who is trying to get a new group
> established to talk to new admins and make a convincing case to
> them to add a new group to their active list?
>
There is nothing unethical about users or the proponent asking that a
group be added. However what you trimed was the comment of a proponent
asking friends to add a group without thier intention to use the group.
The asking to add a gtoup that will not be used by the requestor is
considered unethical. Each request asks for system resouces to be made
available, the reason dor the request should be based on a reason that
concerns the sys admin. It should not be based on gee Bard asked me to
support this stupid group.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Rebecca Ore <rebec...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>I know of at least one case where a sufficiently connected proponent
>>>got a pair of alt.* groups on a lot of servers he doesn't have
>>>accounts with. The normal thing is that a number of friends on a
>>>number of different servers can get groups added to all of them.
>>Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
>What is unethical about it?
Administrators should offer their users a selection of newsgroups that the
users would find useful or entertaining. If a user requests a group be
created, he should be doing it for the reason that he himself would find it
useful.
He shouldn't lie to his news administrator that he would use the group!
Requests for creation should come from those interested in the topic, not
from friends of the proponent.
Devin L. Ganger
wrote:
> Administrators should offer their users a selection of newsgroups that the
> users would find useful or entertaining. If a user requests a group be
> created, he should be doing it for the reason that he himself would find it
> useful.
>
> He shouldn't lie to his news administrator that he would use the group!
> Requests for creation should come from those interested in the topic, not
> from friends of the proponent.
I find it interesting that you think that there can't be an intersection of
the two.
I also find it interesting that you automatically assume that anyone who
campaigns to get an alt group propagated to a userful number of servers
by any means other than dealing with the alt.config clique is doing so
with motives that are low and methods that are unethical.
If I say to my admin, "Hey, I know this person; they are a proponent of
this group, and you should add it for this reason; here's the pointer
to more info" and they add it, I have neither lied nor done anything
except act in the spirit of making that admin aware of more groups that
he should be offering his users that they may find useful or entertaining.
Devin L. Ganger
> There is nothing unethical about users or the proponent asking that a
> group be added. However what you trimed was the comment of a proponent
> asking friends to add a group without thier intention to use the group.
> The asking to add a gtoup that will not be used by the requestor is
> considered unethical. Each request asks for system resouces to be made
> available, the reason dor the request should be based on a reason that
> concerns the sys admin. It should not be based on gee Bard asked me to
> support this stupid group.
Isn't that rather up to the indivdual site admin to determine?
When I was a professional news admin, I certainly gave the requests of my
users much more heed than I did someone who wasn't paying us money, but
if an outside person contacted me and said, "Here's this group we're
trying to get going and it will do this," I'd often add the group because
it was something that probably at least one of my users would think was
cool and useful. I can only recall one instance where I didn't get a
thank-you email from any of my users for adding the group that, in many
cases, they didn't previously know existed.
Adam H. Kerman
>>There is nothing unethical about users or the proponent asking that a
>>group be added. However what you trimed was the comment of a proponent
>>asking friends to add a group without thier intention to use the group.
>>The asking to add a gtoup that will not be used by the requestor is
>>considered unethical. Each request asks for system resouces to be made
>>available, the reason dor the request should be based on a reason that
>>concerns the sys admin. It should not be based on gee Bard asked me to
>>support this stupid group.
>Isn't that rather up to the indivdual site admin to determine?
How does he determine that his user isn't lying to him about his intent to
you the group?
Devin, this would be an example of how to quote without taking remarks out
of context. Try it yourself.
>When I was a professional news admin, I certainly gave the requests of my
>users much more heed than I did someone who wasn't paying us money, but
>if an outside person contacted me and said, "Here's this group we're
>trying to get going and it will do this," I'd often add the group because
>it was something that probably at least one of my users would think was
>cool and useful.
So why wouldn't you simply read the proposals in the newgroup messages? That
was what the proponent was using to communicate with you.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Administrators should offer their users a selection of newsgroups that the
>>users would find useful or entertaining. If a user requests a group be
>>created, he should be doing it for the reason that he himself would find it
>>useful.
>>He shouldn't lie to his news administrator that he would use the group!
>>Requests for creation should come from those interested in the topic, not
>>from friends of the proponent.
>I find it interesting that you think that there can't be an intersection of
>the two.
>I also find it interesting that you automatically assume that anyone who
>campaigns to get an alt group propagated to a userful number of servers
>by any means other than dealing with the alt.config clique is doing so
>with motives that are low and methods that are unethical.
Dealing with the alt.config clique? Promoting the group is the proponent's
JOB. If he won't do it, no one else will.
>If I say to my admin, "Hey, I know this person; they are a proponent of
>this group, and you should add it for this reason; here's the pointer
>to more info" and they add it, I have neither lied nor done anything
>except act in the spirit of making that admin aware of more groups that
>he should be offering his users that they may find useful or entertaining.
Again, if he was willing to consider what outsiders consider to be important,
he'd make an effort to read some of the control messages and let himself get
influenced. Somehow, a plea from someone not discussing the topic wouldn't
seem to carry much weight. It's equivalent to a more personalized booster
message. Doesn't really tell him anything useful.
I tend to doubt there are many such requests being made.
Devin L. Ganger
wrote:
> Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
<bard's ethics of admins and adding groups>
> >Isn't that rather up to the indivdual site admin to determine?
> How does he determine that his user isn't lying to him about his intent to
> you the group?
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I suspect you're doing so
deliberately.
Bard laid down a pronouncement on how news admins "should" act in
responding to requests for their groups. I was questioning his entire
premise, not the mechanics of his proposal.
In other words, it's up to the admin to determine the best use of his
site's resources. While I think we would all agree servicing customer
requests is generally a good use of such resources and would most
likely be given highest priority, I can think of instances where that's
not always true. Conversely, I can also think of instances where,
lacking a specific customer request, it might still be a good judgement
call to add a group in response to outside circumstances (which could
include an outside request).
For example, adding in several groups that weren't previously in your
active list but that are being carried (and thus transmitted) by your
peers, in order to avoid both having your junk group fill up and having
to have one's peers adjust one's feed.
Which brings me back to my original point -- the alt.* hierarchy has no
rules, and alt.config is purely an advisory forum. Yeah, it's probably
a good idea to use it. However, it's not mandatory, and any attempts
to paint it as such are misguided and shading the edge of truth.
Proponents who have what they feel is an overriding reason to not deal
with the alt.config clique are going to have a harder road to walk in
getting their group adequately propagated, but there are means to do
so, including polite requests to news admins.
> >When I was a professional news admin, I certainly gave the requests
of my > >users much more heed than I did someone who wasn't paying us
money, but > >if an outside person contacted me and said, "Here's this
group we're > >trying to get going and it will do this," I'd often add
the group because > >it was something that probably at least one of my
users would think was > >cool and useful.
> So why wouldn't you simply read the proposals in the newgroup
messages? That > was what the proponent was using to communicate with
you.
Because our policy on alt groups was to not add them unless we got a
request. Sometimes, that request was from a user -- in which case, it
got added. At other times, the request was from an outside source, in
which case the group was judged on its own merits, including the text
of the newgroup if it was available via archives.
Why should I read newgroups for a hierarchy that I only add stuff to on
request, when doing the research in the instances required was a much
better use of my time?
Rebecca Ore
> Rebecca Ore <rebec...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> writes:
>
> >Gee, I dropped all alt newsgroups.
>
> Golly. That's quite a judgment, that not one would be useful to your users.
I didn't have many users and I didn't carry many groups. I know of
commercial servers, though, that follow the same policy.
>
> How many users on your network?
20. I've never denied that the server was a hobby server.
>
> >I know of at least one case where a sufficiently connected proponent
> >got a pair of alt.* groups on a lot of servers he doesn't have
> >accounts with. The normal thing is that a number of friends on a
> >number of different servers can get groups added to all of them.
>
> Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
Bluntly, it's alt.* and if people will use the group, build a
community in it, then it's a group that's worth having if any of one's
users are part of that community.
At least to me.
>
> >A lot of very successful alt.* groups are more social than topical.
> >If alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk was proposed today, I'm rather
> >sure it would be shot down by the usual suspects in alt.config.
>
> Excuse me: Rebecca? Under what circumstances would the typical proponent of a
> joke group have ever submitted a draft proposal for review?
So, we're back to "if people who either pay me money or flatter me by
using my server want the group, then I should create the group on my
server."
Social groups are a good chunk of what alt.* is about for a lot of
users. Not all of them are spam-traps.
--
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
> Devin L. Ganger wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 17:02:14 -0000, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
> >
> > How is it unethical for someone who is trying to get a new group
> > established to talk to new admins and make a convincing case to
> > them to add a new group to their active list?
> >
>
> There is nothing unethical about users or the proponent asking that a
> group be added. However what you trimed was the comment of a proponent
> asking friends to add a group without thier intention to use the group.
> The asking to add a gtoup that will not be used by the requestor is
> considered unethical. Each request asks for system resouces to be made
> available, the reason dor the request should be based on a reason that
> concerns the sys admin. It should not be based on gee Bard asked me to
> support this stupid group.
What *are* you talking about?
I was talking about people asking their friends (I at least was
talking about social groups) to get their news admins to add the group
so they could use it (alt.religion.anti-crust comes to mind).
Basically, you're forgetting, in the grand scheme of setting up a
naming category, that email exists, that crossposting exists, and
people tend to find out what groups they want to subscribe to, at
least in this category, from friends who are using the groups.
I found out about alt.binaries.news-server-comparison from one of my
users, for example.
Word of mouth is the best advertising.
--
Rebecca Ore
Rebecca Ore
> bar...@bookpro.com wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Rebecca Ore <rebec...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>I know of at least one case where a sufficiently connected proponent
> >>>got a pair of alt.* groups on a lot of servers he doesn't have
> >>>accounts with. The normal thing is that a number of friends on a
> >>>number of different servers can get groups added to all of them.
>
> >>Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
>
> >What is unethical about it?
>
> Administrators should offer their users a selection of newsgroups that the
> users would find useful or entertaining. If a user requests a group be
> created, he should be doing it for the reason that he himself would find it
> useful.
I don't know all the commericial sites, but the impression I get from
the ones I do know something about is that if users they find
reasonable ask for alt. groups, they add them.
>
> He shouldn't lie to his news administrator that he would use the group!
> Requests for creation should come from those interested in the topic, not
> from friends of the proponent.
Topic, smopic -- it's alt.* and a lot of highly successful groups are
social, not topical. Friends of the proponent are precisely the
people who will be using the group.
--
Rebecca Ore
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> ba...@dmcom.net writes:
>
> > Devin L. Ganger wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 17:02:14 -0000, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, proponents have been known to do that; it's unethical.
> > >
> > > How is it unethical for someone who is trying to get a new group
> > > established to talk to new admins and make a convincing case to
> > > them to add a new group to their active list?
> > >
> >
> > There is nothing unethical about users or the proponent asking that a
> > group be added. However what you trimed was the comment of a proponent
> > asking friends to add a group without thier intention to use the group.
> > The asking to add a gtoup that will not be used by the requestor is
> > considered unethical. Each request asks for system resouces to be made
> > available, the reason dor the request should be based on a reason that
> > concerns the sys admin. It should not be based on gee Bard asked me to
> > support this stupid group.
>
> What *are* you talking about?
I am talking about asking users to request news admins to add a group,
that the those users do not intend to ever use.
>
> I was talking about people asking their friends (I at least was
> talking about social groups) to get their news admins to add the group
> so they could use it (alt.religion.anti-crust comes to mind).
>
That is find and U see nothing un etical about that. In fact if a
propised alt.* appears to have a justification I see no problem in
asking news admins to add a group. The recent alt.*.never-winter group
is an example of that. I saw the need and asked UNS to add it despite
the fact I can not even load that program on my computer (UNS even added
it correctly).
> Basically, you're forgetting, in the grand scheme of setting up a
> naming category, that email exists, that crossposting exists, and
> people tend to find out what groups they want to subscribe to, at
> least in this category, from friends who are using the groups.
I have no problem with anyone that wants to use a group even if they
only found out about the group from a friend. In the big-8 there is
only one generally accepted reason to vote Yes that these people will
use the group (there are exceptions like a remove vote to this general
reason as well as splits, etc.).
>
> I found out about alt.binaries.news-server-comparison from one of my
> users, for example.
I found the group because I was pointer there to find the friendly and
capible owner of UNS. Despite what I found I stayed there.
>
> Word of mouth is the best advertising.
It is most likely the best as UE tends to get deleted with out being
read for Usenet.
>
> --
> Rebecca Ore
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 07:11:04 -0000, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
>
> <bard's ethics of admins and adding groups>
I did not say anything about ethics of admins, if it came over that way
I am sorry. In my view the users ethics of requsting a news admin to
add a group without intentions of using a group or see a need for it
provides a news admin incorrect data about the need or desire to carry a
ba...@dmcom.net
> >That is find and U see nothing un etical about that. In fact if a
^
I
> >propised alt.* appears to have a justification I see no problem in
> >asking news admins to add a group. The recent alt.*.never-winter group
> >is an example of that. I saw the need and asked UNS to add it despite
> >the fact I can not even load that program on my computer (UNS even added
> >it correctly).
>
> How does this differ from asking an admin to add a group that you do
> not intend to use (see your comment above)?
The reasons I asked the group to be added was not because the proponent
was a friend. The reasons included the fact that one of the groups I
read, was getting off-topic posts because it was at least in part the
closest related group. Having dnd as a base for Never Winter the
discussion occured in that group. Another reason was when the proponent
did a seach, Never Winter posts were scattered though 5 or 6 dofferent
groups. The users were not finding each other, a focused group has a
better chance to bring all the users together.
>
> Another issue here is propagation, and if a group is not widely
> carried, posts may not propagate well even if the users' ISPs do carry
> it. I assume they are asking their friends to get it added so that
> propagation will improve. Is that unethical?
I believe so, if there is not wide spread interest in the topic I think
the topic is not ready for Usenet (or at least worldwide Usenet). I am
thinking the fan group proposed for Mr. Walker as one example. A search
on him indicated very little discussion about him. There acutally has
been an attempt to increase the raw count by adding to a post the name
(not discussion about him). Well to be fair there was a slight increase
in discussion, a few asking who he was and/or what movies he was in, but
not much of an increase.
>
> BW
Brian Mailman
that and not news.groups*
ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> ... I am thinking the fan group proposed for Mr. Walker as one example. A
> search on him indicated very little discussion about him. There acutally has
> been an attempt to increase the raw count by adding to a post the name
> (not discussion about him).
In that case, as you've been learning in ac, the proponent is fooling no
one but himself.
B/
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
>>Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
><bard's ethics of admins and adding groups>
>>>Isn't that rather up to the indivdual site admin to determine?
>>How does he determine that his user isn't lying to him about his intent to
>>you the group?
>You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I suspect you're doing so
>deliberately.
Bard's already commented that you reinterpreted his comments, so PKB.
>In other words, it's up to the admin to determine the best use of his
>site's resources. While I think we would all agree servicing customer
>requests is generally a good use of such resources and would most
>likely be given highest priority, I can think of instances where that's
>not always true.
That's fine. But it only makes sense to respond to customer requests if the
customer expresses on honest interest in the topic. Asking users to claim an
interest in the topic, when the topic doesn't interest them, isn't ethical.
>Conversely, I can also think of instances where, lacking a specific customer
>request, it might still be a good judgement call to add a group in response
>to outside circumstances (which could include an outside request).
Fine. We agree. In my opinion, a news administrator should be willing to let
himself be influenced to create the group by the proposal itself.
>For example, adding in several groups that weren't previously in your
>active list but that are being carried (and thus transmitted) by your
>peers, in order to avoid both having your junk group fill up and having
>to have one's peers adjust one's feed.
I guess. A number of news administrators have noted that peers are unwilling
to adjust the feed to your needs.
>Which brings me back to my original point -- the alt.* hierarchy has no
>rules, and alt.config is purely an advisory forum.
This all got started because I suggested that redundant groups are the result
of proponents who put no thought into the group's name. Discussing the name of
the proposed group BEFORE sending the newgroup is a good idea.
>However, it's not mandatory, and any attempts to paint it as such . . .
Back to straw man arguments. No one implied that in any way.
>Proponents who have what they feel is an overriding reason to not deal
>with the alt.config clique . . .
Hokay, now you are starting to obsess. You were a real news administrator at
one time? You don't appear to have the temperament for it.
Agelmar
news:uiha3ni...@corp.supernews.com...
> Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Devin L. Ganger <de...@thecabal.org> wrote:
Would you stop arguing in my result thread? :P
Seriously though, this thread has gotten out of control. It is supposed to
be a place where people can raise objections / concerns on anything related
to the vote on the creation of comp.lang.php. Anything else really should
not be in this thread. If you two really want to pull out the measuring
sticks, go somewhere else. If you want to discuss propagation of groups /
ethics of server administration, start up a new thread. But please, do not
clutter up a RESULT thread with this sort of bickering.
-Ian, Proponent comp.lang.php
Q Tip
>snips
>But please, do not clutter up a RESULT thread with this sort of bickering.
It's over, the five days are up, you won! Now, get a life;-)
--
Q Tip
Adam H. Kerman
>Seriously though, this thread has gotten out of control. It is supposed to
>be a place where people can raise objections / concerns on anything related
>to the vote on the creation of comp.lang.php.
Ok. What were your concerns about the second vote?
>Anything else really should not be in this thread.
Ordinary thread drift, dude. Such is the nature of unmoderated newsgroups.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>A lot of very successful alt.* groups are more social than topical.
>>>If alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk was proposed today, I'm rather
>>>sure it would be shot down by the usual suspects in alt.config.
>>Excuse me: Rebecca? Under what circumstances would the typical proponent of a
>>joke group have ever submitted a draft proposal for review?
>So, we're back to "if people who either pay me money or flatter me by
>using my server want the group, then I should create the group on my
>server."
No, it's another tangent. I'm trying to think of a time when a joke group
wouldn't have had objections raised if proposed in alt.config. Such groups are
just proposed in the newgroup without discussion because the proponent thinks
he's a great wit. It was true then, it's true now, it'll be true tomorrow.
I don't think the proponent of The Flonk expected to create a community of
Flonkers, or if he did, that such community would still exist so many years
later.
Agelmar
> Agelmar <ia...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Seriously though, this thread has gotten out of control. It is supposed
to
> >be a place where people can raise objections / concerns on anything
related
> >to the vote on the creation of comp.lang.php.
>
> Ok. What were your concerns about the second vote?
I have no concerns with it
> >Anything else really should not be in this thread.
>
> Ordinary thread drift, dude. Such is the nature of unmoderated newsgroups.
I am well aware of thread drift, but I just don't think it's appropriate in
important threads, i.e. RFD, CFV, and RESULT threads. These threads have a
specific purpose, for creating new groups, and really should be kept free of
clutter... oh well.
Agelmar
news:q89iiuo6om7jcfbtj...@4ax.com...
I thought it was 10 days... either way...
oh well, I give up :P
Devin L. Ganger
> That is find and U see nothing un etical about that. In fact if a
> propised alt.* appears to have a justification I see no problem in
> asking news admins to add a group. The recent alt.*.never-winter group
> is an example of that. I saw the need and asked UNS to add it despite
> the fact I can not even load that program on my computer (UNS even added
> it correctly).
Waitaminute.
Rebecca said something about folks getting their friends to request
adding alt.* groups of their news admins, and did so in a context in
which I assumed she meant that those friends were interested in using
the group. You and Adam assumed otherwise, and have now spent several
posts crawling up my ass for an interpretation that the original poster
never specified, I never agreed with, and you inferred. You've all but
beat me over the head shouting, "Fradulent add requests are bad, m'kaay?"
and now you admit to doing the very thing (asking for a group to be
added that *you yourself are not using*) you've been whacking on me for?
Where am I missing something here, or is it time for you to put down the
crackpipe?
Rebecca Ore
I don't think that one is as weird as alt.pouting sandwich.
Verizon is yet another provider who adds what the users ask for as
long as either the ISC or Google have a record of the group.
--
Rebecca Ore
Adam H. Kerman
>I am well aware of thread drift, but I just don't think it's appropriate in
>important threads, i.e. RFD, CFV, and RESULT threads. These threads have a
>specific purpose, for creating new groups, and really should be kept free of
>clutter... oh well.
The newgroup was sent. A booster was sent six hours later. (Sheesh; I thought
only alt.* proponents did that.)
If you had no concerns about the vote, there would have been no thread. It's
hard to say what there was to wreck.