RFD: comp.lang.xharbour
patrickmast
unmoderated group comp.lang.xharbour
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.lang.xharbour
comp.lang.xharbour xHarbour programming, implementation, and use.
RATIONALE: comp.lang.xharbour
xHarbour is a computer language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHarbour).
There are thousands of xHarbour developers throughout the world,
supporting
fairly busy multiple news groups at:
news://news.xharbour.org/xHarbour
news://news.xharbour.org/xHarbour.Spanish.Portuguese
Additionally there are multiple forums on numerous other web sites, none
offering the propagation and overall utility of Usenet. It seems that
there's sufficient interest in xHarbour to support an xHarbour specific
comp.lang group.
The main purposes of this group, therefore, is to serve as a consolidated,
dedicated group, and to make it easier for new users to locate xHarbour
related discussion, and help forum.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS:
Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500 messages
per month. There is additionally some traffic scattered through multiple
other xHarbour 3d party forums such as:
http://fivetechsoft.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=3
http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/miniguibrasil
as well as multiple other general purpose forums.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.xharbour is an unmoderated newsgroup which will serve as
a forum for discussing the xHarbour programming language. The group
will serve both those who program in xHarbour and those who work
on developing the language. Topics that may be discussed include:
- Announcements of new versions of the language.
- Design and internals of the xHarbour language.
- Design, programming, and administration of systems
and applications which use the xHarbour language.
- Strengths, weaknesses, and general usage of xHarbour
to solve real world problems.
- Technical discussion of products or themes of interest
to xHarbour developers, including third-party add-on
products, their usage, advantages and drawbacks, and
links to additional information.
Notwithstanding the above, advertisements of any kind are
specifically disallowed, except for brief announcements of products
and events specifically for xHarbour programmers. This specifically
excludes:
a. General-purpose programming tools.
b. Announcements of over 50 lines of text.
c. Advertisements listing specific prices and ordering
information.
d. Products and events which are not substantially specific
to the needs of xHarbour developers.
e. Any product or event that has been announced on
comp.lang.xharbour within the past 30 days.
Item (d) is intended to mitigate against announcements of general
purpose programming tools or events, which really belong somewhere
like:
comp.lang.misc
There is nothing wrong with posts like this but this charter is
specifically attempting to establish strict definition of what's
considered on-topic for comp.lang.xharbour. The clear intent and
general requirement for all posts is to have directly xHarbour
related content.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group.
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-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.
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.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.clipper
The proponent will also post pointers to:
news://news.xharbour.org/xHarbour
http://www.xharbour.org
PROPONENT:
Patrick Mast, xHarbour <patrick....@gmail.com>
Co-Proponent: Ron Pinkas <R...@RonPinkas.com>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2006-12-18 1st RFD
Thomas Lee
<?@?.xHarbour.invalid> writes
>Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500
>messages per month.
How many of them would use a big-8 group?
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Patrick Mast, xHarbour
> >Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500
> >messages per month.
>How many of them would use a big-8 group?
We hope all of them. The new comp.lang.xHarbour should be the central
gathering place for all xHarbour technical related discussions.
--
Sincerely,
Patrick Mast,
xHarbour.com Inc.
http://www.xHarbour.com
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>In message <nan.20061218170840$5a...@killfile.org>, Patrick Mast
><?@?.xHarbour.invalid> writes
>>Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500
>>messages per month.
>How many of them would use a big-8 group?
I have the impression that the proponent is a major
player in the xharbour world:
http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=developers/index
Unlike the joomla proposal, where the nature of joomla
applications (drawing users to participate in websites)
is somewhat in tension with Usenet (which might draw
users away from websites), the xharbour community is
not in competition with anything Usenet does. That
they have their own news server
(news://news.xHarbour.org/xHarbour) suggests that
they may have a lot of people who would be willing
to participate in a worldwide group.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) -- http://www.big-8.org
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
E. Fridman
I think it's a good idea. Is there a vote somewhere that we need to
participate in?
Thomas Lee
<mol...@canisius.edu> writes
>I have the impression that the proponent is a major player in the
>xharbour world:
His credentials are not the issue. :-)
What is needed, IMHO, is some justification that the users will use the
proposed group.
Thomas Lee
"Patrick Mast, xHarbour" <patrick....@gmail.com> writes
>Hello Thomas,
>
>> >Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500
>> >messages per month.
>
>>How many of them would use a big-8 group?
>
>We hope all of them. The new comp.lang.xHarbour should be the central
>gathering place for all xHarbour technical related discussions.
Hope is not a good basis for a newsgroup.
I would hope to see more clear support.
Doug Freyburger
>
> I think it's a good idea. Is there a vote somewhere that we need to
> participate in?
One thing that the proponent should do during the discussion is
maintain a list of people who come out in favor or opposed and
who expects to use the group or not. It's not a requirement but
since public votes are no longer a part of the process keeping
such a poll helps justify future traffic.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1166472452.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>I think it's a good idea. Is there a vote somewhere that we need to
>participate in?
Congratulations! You just participated in the poll! :o)
So far, asking proponents to keep track of feedback seems to
be the best polling system we have available.
It shows that the poster is willing and able to use Usenet.
Anyone who wants to check the headers for information about
the poster may do so.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>In message <12odqho...@news.supernews.com>, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
><mol...@canisius.edu> writes
>>I have the impression that the proponent is a major player in the
>>xharbour world:
>His credentials are not the issue. :-)
>What is needed, IMHO, is some justification that the users will use the
>proposed group.
Understood.
I wrote him about this early in the pre-n.a.n. process.
I'm moderately confident that he will be able to show
a solid base of support for the proposal over the next
few weeks. (There's no way we can act on it before
we go on vacation on Wednesday.)
And if I'm wrong, it won't be the first or last time
in my life. ;o)
budya...@gmail.com
> One thing that the proponent should do during the discussion is
> maintain a list of people who come out in favor or opposed and
> who expects to use the group or not. It's not a requirement but
> since public votes are no longer a part of the process keeping
> such a poll helps justify future traffic.
I am in favor and expect to use this group comp.lang.xharbour.
Regards,
budyanto
Jim Riley
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:49:59 +0000, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:08:40 -0600, Patrick Mast xHarbour
><patrick....@gmail.com> wrote in news.announce.newgroups:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.xharbour
>>
>> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
>>
>>
>> NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.lang.xharbour
>>
>> comp.lang.xharbour xHarbour programming, implementation, and use.
>
>There's no reason to repeat "xHarbour" in the Description.
I think it is particularly useful when the name of the newsgroup does
not match the orthography of the topic name.
In the case of programming language groups in the comp.lang.*
sub-hierarchy the newsgroup description is largely superfluous. The
main purpose in that case is simply to avoid the odd appearance of a
blank line.
--
Jim Riley
Thomas Lee
<mol...@canisius.edu> writes
>I'm moderately confident that he will be able to show a solid base of
>support for the proposal over the next few weeks. (There's no way we
>can act on it before we go on vacation on Wednesday.)
Good. In theory the group seems sensible - but I want to ensure there is
adequate support.
The proponent for this group should note the discussion of r.p.m where
loads of folks are saying "yes I'll read/post".
>And if I'm wrong, it won't be the first or last time in my life. ;o)
We'll see!
mpe...@logistis.cz
first users of this workgroup.
Thank you in advance for opening of group asap.
Kivi
Jonathan Kamens
>In message <12odqho...@news.supernews.com>, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
><mol...@canisius.edu> writes
>>I have the impression that the proponent is a major player in the
>>xharbour world:
>
>His credentials are not the issue. :-)
I believe Marty's point in mentioning that he is a major player is
that if a major player in the xHarbour world decides that there sould
be a Big-8 group for xHarbour, starts using it, and starts encouraging
other people to use it, it is exceedingly likely that that will be
enough to ensure that the group achieves critical mass.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Dave Sill
> So far, asking proponents to keep track of feedback seems to
> be the best polling system we have available.
What about jik's polling app? I thought is was ready to go.
-Dave
Thomas Lee
<j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> writes
>I believe Marty's point in mentioning that he is a major player is that
>if a major player in the xHarbour world decides that there sould be a
>Big-8 group for xHarbour, starts using it, and starts encouraging other
>people to use it, it is exceedingly likely that that will be enough to
>ensure that the group achieves critical mass.
Build it and he will make them come?
;-)
Thomas
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
He'd like to have it exercised by the UVP first
before offering it to the world at large.
I still value people posting their feedback in n.g.p.
or n.g. That shows that they DO know how to use
Usenet. But the more tools we have, the better.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>In message <em8rrt$s5g$3...@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us>, Jonathan Kamens
><j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> writes
>>I believe Marty's point in mentioning that he is a major player is that
>>if a major player in the xHarbour world decides that there sould be a
>>Big-8 group for xHarbour, starts using it, and starts encouraging other
>>people to use it, it is exceedingly likely that that will be enough to
>>ensure that the group achieves critical mass.
>Build it and he will make them come?
Not so much that as that he (unlike joomla site managers)
is actively recruiting his friends and colleagues to back
and (if created) use the new group.
We can't act on this proposal quickly due to our vacation,
which starts tomorrow, so the proponent has time to
generate some feedback before the board votes on
his proposal.
Ron Pinkas
> >>
> >> comp.lang.xharbour xHarbour programming, implementation, and use.
> >
> >There's no reason to repeat "xHarbour" in the Description.
>
> I think it is particularly useful when the name of the newsgroup does
> not match the orthography of the topic name.
>
> In the case of programming language groups in the comp.lang.*
> sub-hierarchy the newsgroup description is largely superfluous. The
> main purpose in that case is simply to avoid the odd appearance of a
> blank line.
Thanks for the input Jim - we'll revise for the next step.
Ron Pinkas
Tim Skirvin
>>> Current xHarbour specific news groups traffic averages some 1,500
>>> messages per month.
>> How many of them would use a big-8 group?
> We hope all of them. The new comp.lang.xHarbour should be the central
> gathering place for all xHarbour technical related discussions.
Have you told them about the proposal? If they post here in
support of the proposal, it should make it much more clear that there's
interest.
Are you planning to actually move the discussion and take down the
old forums, or will they stay open?
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Eugene F.
<< I would hope to see more clear support. >>
In what shape or form should we (future users) should express it?
Please clarify.
TIA, Eugene
rodol...@gmail.com
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<1166561033.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>In what shape or form should we (future users) should express it?
For the time being, the best method is to post your expressions
of support to this thread.
The proponent should be collecting a list of such posts
with message IDs as evidence that there is a core group
of Usenet-savvy xHarbour people who want to see the
group created.
Cf. http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:rfd#traffic_analysis
and
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=workgroups:polling#feedback_from_usenet
Thomas Lee
Eugene F. <pm77...@gmail.com> writes
One useful appproach is to get potential users to post their support
here, indicating they'd use (read and post) to the group if created.
Thomas
will...@gmail.com
Regards
Joris
nickv...@gmail.com
Patrick schreef:
asc...@gmail.com
Patrick wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.xharbour
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
>
>
>
> comp.lang.xharbour xHarbour programming, implementation, and use.
>
What will happen to xHb's own news server btw?
Alex
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>What will happen to xHb's own news server btw?
As an outsider looking in--and as a total dork when
it comes to knowing what the next phrases really
mean--I wonder whether it could be configured to
carry c.l.x.? It would only need a few peers,
I imagine, to make it work, for those who
wanted to access the group through the old
news server.
I would also kind of hope that xHb's own newsgroup
might be closed. The proponent talked about making
c.l.x. the defacto "central support group" for the
language. IF the current users could be persuaded
to migrate to Usenet, that should provide a very
solid base for the new group. If the old newsgroup
stays in existence, then the new newsgroup might
be divisive rather than unitive.
Ron Pinkas
> >What will happen to xHb's own news server btw?
>
> As an outsider looking in--and as a total dork when
> it comes to knowing what the next phrases really
> mean--I wonder whether it could be configured to
> carry c.l.x.? It would only need a few peers,
> I imagine, to make it work, for those who
> wanted to access the group through the old
> news server.
>
> I would also kind of hope that xHb's own newsgroup
> might be closed. The proponent talked about making
> c.l.x. the defacto "central support group" for the
> language. IF the current users could be persuaded
> to migrate to Usenet, that should provide a very
> solid base for the new group. If the old newsgroup
> stays in existence, then the new newsgroup might
> be divisive rather than unitive.
Sorry for not making it clear earlier. The current dedicated NG
services will be switched to READ ONLY mode once c.l.x. is established.
Our only hope is that the tech experts resposnible for the
implementation of c.l.x. will somehow find a way to import the existing
70K or so messages.
Ron
Ron Pinkas
> >Sorry for not making it clear earlier. The current dedicated NG
> >services will be switched to READ ONLY mode once c.l.x. is established.
> >Our only hope is that the tech experts resposnible for the
> >implementation of c.l.x. will somehow find a way to import the existing
> >70K or so messages.
>
> If by import you mean inject the currently held posts on a private
> server into the public USENet, that'd likely be doable. :)
That will be great, thanks for the info.
Ron
Dave Sill
> Our only hope is that the tech experts resposnible for the
> implementation of c.l.x. will somehow find a way to import the existing
> 70K or so messages.
Um, no, that would not be recommended. Usenet isn't an archive,
and reinjecting mass quantities of old messages would be considered
abuse by most news admins.
-Dave
Jonathan Kamens
>Our only hope is that the tech experts resposnible for the
>implementation of c.l.x. will somehow find a way to import the existing
>70K or so messages.
It would not be appropriate to suddenly flood 70,000 messages
into a newly created Big-8 newsgroup. Post a periodic FAQ in
the new newsgroup, pointing people at the old archive for
reference, until the new group has been around for long
enough to have built up a sizable history and the old archive
is no longer needed.
Thomas Lee
<j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> writes
>It would not be appropriate to suddenly flood 70,000 messages into a
>newly created Big-8 newsgroup. Post a periodic FAQ in the new
>newsgroup, pointing people at the old archive for reference, until the
>new group has been around for long enough to have built up a sizable
>history and the old archive is no longer needed.
And perhaps export the archive to text, zip it up and place it on an
FTP/Web site. That would allow those interested to import it as they saw
fit.
steven....@gmail.com
nickv...@gmail.com schreef:
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>In message <eme6jj$735$5...@jik2.kamens.brookline.ma.us>, Jonathan Kamens
><j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us> writes
>>It would not be appropriate to suddenly flood 70,000 messages into a
>>newly created Big-8 newsgroup. Post a periodic FAQ in the new
>>newsgroup, pointing people at the old archive for reference, until the
>>new group has been around for long enough to have built up a sizable
>>history and the old archive is no longer needed.
>And perhaps export the archive to text, zip it up and place it on an
>FTP/Web site. That would allow those interested to import it as they saw
>fit.
Is there any possibility of getting google to accept the
old archive?
That sure would make the information more useable.
WAIT A MINUTE! Depending on the size of the spool, I might
be able to place it on a google web page.
I've got a 100 MB allowance.
I don't know whether that'd be enough for the archive.
I don't know how it would fit in with the terms of
service.
I don't know whether Google would archive the information
from the site.
GACK--and it would probably be pretty hard to create
the pages through the interface provided.
So that doesn't seem to be the right approach ...
So back to the original idea: asking google to take
the old posts into their archive system as a
group marked "closed" and perhaps with some
kind of pointer in the last posts toward c.l.x.
Kathy Morgan
> Is there any possibility of getting google to accept the
> old archive?
It certainly wouldn't hurt for the owner of the archive to ask them.
> WAIT A MINUTE! Depending on the size of the spool, I might
> be able to place it on a google web page.[...]
>
> GACK--and it would probably be pretty hard to create
> the pages through the interface provided.
There are some news to web utilities, so I think that might be a
possibility. I don't know anything at all about them, other than that
they exist.
> So back to the original idea: asking google to take
> the old posts into their archive system as a
> group marked "closed" and perhaps with some
> kind of pointer in the last posts toward c.l.x.
This really sounds like the best idea, plus Thomas Lee's suggestion to
export it to a text file, zip it, and make it available via ftp.
(Better than Google for those who prefer their newsreader interface and
can import such a file.)
--
Kathy
Doug Freyburger
> Thomas Lee wrote:
> > Jonathan Kamens writes
>
> >>It would not be appropriate to suddenly flood 70,000 messages into a
> >>newly created Big-8 newsgroup. Post a periodic FAQ in the new
> >>newsgroup, pointing people at the old archive for reference, until the
> >>new group has been around for long enough to have built up a sizable
> >>history and the old archive is no longer needed.
>
> >And perhaps export the archive to text, zip it up and place it on an
> >FTP/Web site. That would allow those interested to import it as they saw
> >fit.
>
> Is there any possibility of getting google to accept the
> old archive?
They have been known to take such archives.
> That sure would make the information more useable.
Are there archives other than google that folks tend to go to? If
not maybe google can be convinced to load the 70K messages
into the group but mark them old enough that they aren't sent
out over the line to everyone else. Seed the group in the archive
without flooding it everywhere ...
> So back to the original idea: asking google to take
> the old posts into their archive system as a
> group marked "closed" and perhaps with some
> kind of pointer in the last posts toward c.l.x.
If they use the old name and mark it closed that should work and
be easier than seeding the new group because that's where
folks generally search.
Tim Skirvin
>> So back to the original idea: asking google to take the old posts into
>> their archive system as a group marked "closed" and perhaps with some
>> kind of pointer in the last posts toward c.l.x.
> This really sounds like the best idea, plus Thomas Lee's suggestion to
> export it to a text file, zip it, and make it available via ftp.
News::Archive and News::Web would give a nice web interface to the
posts:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/news-archive/
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/software/news/news-web/
This could then be indexed by Google.
(Back to my vacation!)
kim.w...@gmail.com
I've been waiting for something like this!
Kind regards,
Kim
Thomas Lee
kim.w...@gmail.com writes
Thanks Kim. And Steve. And Nick.
You might wish to be more consistent with who you call yourself.
sandeep...@gmail.com
Sandeep
sandeep...@gmail.com
> proposed group.
Okay will make sure that I also add up to view this thread daily as I
do with xHarbour NG.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>What is the proceedure to tell yes we need it.
For now, you've done it.
The proponent should be keeping track of the
feedback from Usenet.
dlzc
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.xharbour
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
> All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.
> To this end, the 'Followup-To' header of this RFD has been set to this group.
>
> 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.
I vote in favor, for all that is worth.
Outlook Express does not allow searching for multiple dissociated words
in the body of a post, and Google.Groups does. Maybe just my choice of
"tools".
Whether this becomes a usenet newsgroup or a Google group is not my
call.
There is much knowledge stored in the 70k messages, only some of which
is currently "visible" to all (x)harbour users. Having this available
will help many (some?).
David A. Smith
Larry Linson
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.xharbour
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
I support creation of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.xharbour.
I was an "official" approver of the creation of
comp.lang.databases.ms-access back in 1993, have participated there ever
since, and believe there is no better method of supporting a database
language in its "adolescence" than to have a USENET newsgroup.
I would suggest however that xHarbour should be in the
comp.lang.databases... branch of the comp.lang hierarchy, to wit,
comp.lang.databases.xharbour rather than comp.lang.xharbour.
Larry Linson
sandeep...@gmail.com
> maintain a list of people who come out in favor
I am in favour.
> who expects to use the group or not.
If the group exists, it would really help a lot and sure will use it to
the core!
comp.lang.clipper served and serves its purpose, I am sure
comp.lang.xharbour would achieve the same!
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... comp.lang.clipper served and serves its purpose, I am sure
>comp.lang.xharbour would achieve the same!
That's a good argument for not putting the proposed group
under the comp.lang.databases.* hierarchy. Keep like with
like.
Francesco Saverio Giudice
Best Regards
Francesco Saverio Giudice