RFD: comp.lang.php
Ian Fette
unmoderated group comp.lang.php
Newsgroup Line:
comp.lang.php Discussion of PHP, server side scripting.
This is a formal Request Fr Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.php. This is not a
Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details
are below.
RATIONALE: comp.lang.php
An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used. Not all servers
carry alt.* newsgroups, however. Almost all news servers carry the
comp.lang.* groups, which would make the group more accessible to
users. Also, 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.
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.
Crossposting is frowned upon, as is the posting of binaries. 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.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
alt.php
de.comp.lang.php
and a copy of the RFD will be posted to:
alt.php.sql
Proponent: Ian Fette ife...@comcast.net
Ewoud Dronkert
> this time.
Agreed.
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
> news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, alt.php, de.comp.lang.php
> and a copy of the RFD will be posted to:
> alt.php.sql
Don't forget alt.comp.lang.php !!
Bouncy
news:10198049...@isc.org...
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php
About time too, the missing part of the benefits, though, is that some news
servers have a blanket message kill time on alt.* that makes many of us miss
messages if away for more than a day or two..
Fred
--snip--
what about alt.comp.lang.php? should they be informed also?
Fred.
Rasmus Vedel
If you concider creating an comp.lang.php (which I agree is a more relevant
name), then please concider to close alt.php!
If not we will all experience a lot of crosspostings, and a lot of people
will only read one of the groups, which would make this well working group
less usefull.
If, for some reason, it's not possible to close the alt.php, I think
creation of comp.lang.php is a BAD idea!
Comments, please?
Rasmus
--
"Ian Fette" <ife...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:10198049...@isc.org...
Ian Fette
news:3cc96f6c$0$3771$ba62...@nntp01.dk.telia.net...
> For discussion:
>
> If you concider creating an comp.lang.php (which I agree is a more
relevant
> name), then please concider to close alt.php!
>
> If not we will all experience a lot of crosspostings, and a lot of people
> will only read one of the groups, which would make this well working group
> less usefull.
>
> If, for some reason, it's not possible to close the alt.php, I think
> creation of comp.lang.php is a BAD idea!
>
> Comments, please?
>
> Rasmus
It is possible to close down alt.php, however I think we should wait to do
that until comp.lang.php has been up for a month or so and is "working". I
post in alt.php a lot, and I will switch over, as will many others I'm sure.
We can post reminders in there to move over etc, but I think you're right,
eventually alt.php will need to go down. Unfortunately, however, while it is
possible to close an alt.* group it is not easy, as these are not as heavily
controlled as the comp, rec, and other heiarchies. It can be done,
however... also, in the charter it specifically says no crossposting, this
was thought of as a possible problem and we are trying to cut it off before
it starts.
Stefan Bruhn
>An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used. Not all servers
>carry alt.* newsgroups, however. Almost all news servers carry the
>comp.lang.* groups, which would make the group more accessible to
>users. Also, 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.
I think such a group would be a great idea!
You should announce it in dk.edb.internet.webdesign.serverside.php as
well, I think, seeing as you posted in the de.* group.
--
Mvh. Stefan
Website: http://www.3x7.dk/ | http://ghashul.dk/
"I demand the right to keep and arm bears"
"A computer without Windows, is like a fish without a bicycle"
Jezza
<10198049...@isc.org>, ife...@comcast.net (Ian Fette)
uttered the following:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php
>
>Newsgroup Line:
>comp.lang.php Discussion of PHP, server side scripting.
>
This looks good, I would read and occasionally post to such a
group.
--
Jeremy McNeill,
webm...@bristol-theatre.info
www.bristol-theatre.info
Klaas
>
> It is possible to close down alt.php, however I think we should wait
to do
> that until comp.lang.php has been up for a month or so and is
"working". I
> post in alt.php a lot, and I will switch over, as will many others
I'm sure.
> We can post reminders in there to move over etc, but I think you're
right,
> eventually alt.php will need to go down. Unfortunately, however,
while it is
> possible to close an alt.* group it is not easy, as these are not as
heavily
> controlled as the comp, rec, and other heiarchies. It can be done,
> however...
<>
No, it is impossible to "close" an alt.* group. You can send rmgroups
all you want, but they won't make a dent in appreciable propagation of
the group. Especially if the group receives traffic.
-Mike
Jurgen Schwietering
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php
Would be nice to post this to it.comp.www.php too!
Thanks
Jurgen
Agelmar
news:aabvqb$9krqa$1...@ID-26705.news.dfncis.de...
Well, if you get enough servers to drop it it's essentially closed, but yes
I guess technically it is impossible to "close" an alt.* group... but it's
not impossible to get people to abandon it.
Klaas
news:aac0jj$9mo2s$1...@ID-30799.news.dfncis.de...
Good luck getting 30,000 servers to drop an alt.* group. I also doubt
that the group will be abandoned. After all, alt.comp.lang.php is the
correct group for php discussion (taxanomically) yet that doesn't stop
alt.php from being a more active group.
-Mike
Agelmar
True, but you're comparing two alt.* groups. With a comp.lang group, there
is usually better distribution, longer retention, etc... imo a true
comp.lang group (not alt.comp.lang) will definitely dominate an alt.* group.
Andy Hassall
>Almost all news servers carry the comp.lang.* groups, which would make
>the group more accessible to users.
Agreed.
>An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used
^^^^^^^^^
[snip]
>Crossposting is frowned upon
I'd have thought it more sensible to even _encourage_ crossposting
between the new group and the existing well-used alt.php.* groups, in
order to:
(a) Minimise duplication of answers (as has been amply demonstrated by
the increasing incidence of multi-posts between the existing groups)
(b) Gain a larger audience to answer and review answers, to the benefit
of the users of each of the groups.
Anything that's on-topic for alt.php is on-topic for alt.comp.lang.php
and the proposed comp.lang.php. Some (not all) of these posts would also
be on-topic for alt.php.sql.
--
Andy Hassall (an...@andyh.org) icq(5747695) http://www.andyh.org
http://www.andyh.uklinux.net/space | disk usage analysis tool
Agelmar
news:kpojcuslp3hfkvaeo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:08:22 UTC, ife...@comcast.net (Ian Fette) wrote:
>
> >Almost all news servers carry the comp.lang.* groups, which would make
> >the group more accessible to users.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> [snip]
>
> >Crossposting is frowned upon
>
> I'd have thought it more sensible to even _encourage_ crossposting
> between the new group and the existing well-used alt.php.* groups, in
> order to:
>
> (a) Minimise duplication of answers (as has been amply demonstrated by
> the increasing incidence of multi-posts between the existing groups)
>
> (b) Gain a larger audience to answer and review answers, to the benefit
> of the users of each of the groups.
>
> Anything that's on-topic for alt.php is on-topic for alt.comp.lang.php
> and the proposed comp.lang.php. Some (not all) of these posts would also
> be on-topic for alt.php.sql.
As a general rule of thumb, cross posting is frowned upon. Cross-posting
should be done only when absolutely necessary and/or two different things
are targeted (i.e. if you're having a problem with Visual Studio and Windows
XP, you might crosspost to a Visual Studio group and a Windows XP group). As
a general rule of thumb, however, you should try to post to only one group.
Also, with the introduction of comp.lang.php, it would be silly to have
alt.comp.lang.php still in use. alt.comp.lang.php exists because alt.*
groups are easy to create and someone obviously didn't go through the
process / at the time the process did not succeed to create comp.lang.php.
Same with alt.php. With the introduction of comp.lang.php, rather than
creating a third faction, alt.comp.lang.php and alt.php could finally be
united in a single group carried by almost all servers (I know my server
only carried alt.php up until a few days ago, and not everyone carries
alt.php - not to mention the fact that because it is an alt.* group most
servers store messages for a shorter period of time...)
So in short, I would hope that comp.lang.php would be a merger of alt.php
and alt.comp.lang.php - Not everyone reads both / is able to read both, and
not all servers carry both (or either). A group in the comp.lang.* heiarchy
would be carried by almost all servers, would have longer retention on most
servers, and would provide a chance to unite alt.comp.lang.php and alt.php.
Fred
> "Andy Hassall" <an...@andyh.org> wrote in message
> news:kpojcuslp3hfkvaeo...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 07:08:22 UTC, ife...@comcast.net (Ian Fette) wrote:
--------snip-----------
>
> So in short, I would hope that comp.lang.php would be a merger of alt.php
> and alt.comp.lang.php - Not everyone reads both / is able to read both,
and
> not all servers carry both (or either). A group in the comp.lang.*
heiarchy
> would be carried by almost all servers, would have longer retention on
most
> servers, and would provide a chance to unite alt.comp.lang.php and
alt.php.
>
I agree.
This would be the best possible outcome. If comp.lang.php were to be
created and people still used alt.php and alt.comp.lang.php nobody would
benefit. We must make sure that alt.php and alt.comp.lang.php are deserted.
It is already a pain for various reasons to have two php groups - let alone
three...
Fred.
Joe Bernstein
In article <10198049...@isc.org>, Ian Fette <ife...@comcast.net> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php
>
> Newsgroup Line:
> comp.lang.php Discussion of PHP, server side scripting.
I expect to begin learning PHP no later than June, so I have an incentive
to vote YES on this group, barring complications.
So far, I see none, but I see potential for one. It's clear that
discussion is already widely fragmented, with poor retentions and/or
propagation of the two alt.* groups (um, or three, depending on how
you count) presumably being at least part of the reason why there are
also at least three groups in the national or non-English-language
hierarchies. In this circumstance, what I'm accustomed to seing is
some degree of controversy - "We don't want to move!" in essence.
I'm glad not to be seeing that here, but I want to clear up a couple
of misconceptions.
1) None of the alt.* groups will be "shut down". Period. At most,
they will be abandoned. I'll point out that they're more likely to
*stay* abandoned if someone starts doing an auto-posting (assuming
the group passes) saying "Go to comp.lang.php". That said, while
it would be a matter of courtesy to alt.* to send some token rmgroups
(after appropriate discussion in alt.config, of course ;-), it's also
true that at some later date personality clashes might erupt such that
one side or the other would want to cool off in alt.*, so it's not
the worst thing in the world for those groups to exist abandoned.
2) The comp.* group, if created, will not get the kind of automatic
propagation you may be accustomed to thinking Big 8 groups get. In late
1998, immense torrents of bogus newgroups (and I think also rmgroups)
for Big 8 namespace were sent by HipCrime or one of his fellow haters
of human communication. Many, many news servers appear to have reacted
by changing how they add Big 8 newsgroups. Such changes have taken a
variety of forms, but their net effect has almost certainly been to
reduce the speed with which Big 8 groups get propagated.
I speak in this regard as a proponent for a group whose original
newgroup was sent *during* the first HipCrime flood, so that the group
became one of the first victims of this situation. In that case, the
group's supporters came mostly from another group, and when half of
them couldn't get the new group at their server, they simply went back
to that other group. The new group has been anemic, though not
completely inactive, ever since.
Realistically, experiences vary, and by now, over three years later,
most servers run by anyone who cares even a little have found some
reasonable way to deal with Big 8 newgroups and such. But a sizable
minority of you will probably find out the hard way that your own news
server is *not* run by anyone who cares even a little.
Nobody has really been able to compile old-fashioned propagation
statistics for any of the recently added Big 8 groups, let alone compare
these to alt.* groups. But I feel safe in predicting that for at least
the first month, it would be mere *courtesy* to cross-post discussions
between the comp.* group and one of the existing alt.* groups, and that
there will be a certain amount of trouble for a certain number of
interested people. (My current newsgroup access is through a server
that seems to be well-run, but my alternate access, Google, often needs
prodding. AOL used to be notorious for slowness, but I don't know if
they still are. Like that.)
I'd still prefer a Big 8 group personally. If nothing else, the Big
8 tends still to have retention advantages (especially comp.*). I just
don't want y'all promised a rose garden falsely.
> RATIONALE: comp.lang.php
>
> An alt.php newsgroup currently exists and is well used. Not all servers
> carry alt.* newsgroups, however. Almost all news servers carry the
> comp.lang.* groups, which would make the group more accessible to
> users. Also, 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.
It appears that *if* there's a second RFD, which I think is rather
unlikely at this point, this rationale should be expanded significantly
to list other PHP related groups. (Which is prima facie evidence of
potential traffic, one of the things rationales are supposed to provide;
but at this point, enough supporters have posted here to make such
evidence rather unnecessary.)
> 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.
>
> Crossposting is frowned upon, as is the posting of binaries. 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.
This is a suitable charter. I'd re-word the first paragraph somewhat
more optimistically: "comp.lang.php is a global forum for the discussion
of ... It should be a relaxed yet helpful ..." (Charters survive the
vote and so should be in present tense; this one is, but that first
paragraph doesn't mean to be.)
More seriously, you left out the Standard Ban on advertising. Maybe
there's no need for it, or maybe you want as much on-topic advertising
as you can get; if this was just an oversight, though, it might be
worth discussing what sort of ban would be desirable. My own
preference has long been for something similar to what the charters of
the groups I worked on actually have, basically "be informative and
infrequent"; see soc.history.early-modern or soc.history.ancient at the
ISC archives. But I'm not that picky, and the group need not have any
ban at all, as long as people are aware that it doesn't and OK with that.
(Off-topic advertising is banned simply by having a charter at all,
but there are some ISPs which, when complained to, will not listen
unless you say something explicit. The only purpose of an advertising
ban in a charter is to satisfy ISPs that read charters - a distinct
minority of total ISPs - if you have reason to complain about one
of their posters; but charters in general are more useful as informal
ways for people creating a group to agree on what they want anyway,
and it's mainly in that regard that I want to bring this up.)
> 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.
This is a paragraph from the rationale that has gone wandering. See
if your UVV member will let you move it where it belongs if you go
straight to CFV; if there's a second RFD (I don't *think* an advertising
ban of some sort should call for a second RFD, but I dunno), do it for
sure.
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> alt.php
> de.comp.lang.php
>
> and a copy of the RFD will be posted to:
>
> alt.php.sql
Discussion has brought up *lots* of other PHP groups. Please be aware
that most proposals for Big 8 groups these days fail, for lack of votes.
It is *strongly* in your interest to tell everyone who will listen about
this RFD, because if you do, it's perfectly OK also to tell them about
your CFV. So by all means, notify the three or four other groups
already mentioned, and keep looking for more.
Anyway, thanks for sticking with this RFD; I hope it leads to a group
I can benefit from, and eventually provide benefits to.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and accounting clerk j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Joe Bernstein
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.php
As best I can tell, the same person also posts as "agelmaar", and
has been posting in news.groups since this RFD.
Um, are you planning to drop this proposal? I hope not.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>