News group for the GO programming language pls

[rek2 hispagatos]

Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.

What does everyone think? I was reading:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

Happy Hacking.

--
https://hispagatos.org
Gemini://rek2.hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/rek2.hispagatos.org/

[meff]

On 2022-03-30, rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

I would be interested in a Go group.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 07:46:29 CST
rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

I would read a Go group but wouldn't post in it since I don't know the
language and have no immediate plans to learn it. So I would be reading
for reasons of curiosity and general knowledge.

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

On 30/03/2022 15.46, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
> Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

I have no opinion on the group you're proposing but just wanted to point
out that your thread has attracted a reply in the unmoderated
counterpart of this group, news.groups: <news:t24aij$kpu$1...@dont-email.me>.

Regards,
Tristan

--
Usenet Big-8 Management Board
https://www.big-8.org/
bo...@big-8.org

[rek2 hispagatos]

Thanks,
Is that good or bad? O_O

Happy Hacking

[Tristan Miller]

Greetings.

On 01/04/2022 00.09, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
> Is that good or bad? O_O

It's bad only insofar as the discussion is now split over two different
(albeit appropriate) groups. But as far as bad things go, it's not so
serious. I mentioned it here only to draw attention to it, in case you
and other readers of this thread hadn't noticed it.

[John McCue]

rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
> Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

I thing a OG group would be useful and make sense
>
> Happy Hacking.
>

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

[rek2 hispagatos]

Thank you Tristan.
ReK2

On 2022-03-31, Tristan Miller <tmi...@big-8.org> wrote:

[rek2 hispagatos]

Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?

Thanks
Happy Hacking

On 2022-03-30, rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:

> Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
>
> Happy Hacking.
>


--

gemini://hispagatos.org
gemini://rek2.hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.space/@rek2

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 12:46:05 CST
rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
> So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?

You make a reply in <t2uplg$k4l$1...@gioia.aioe.org> .

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <t2qr6t$qmm$1...@dont-email.me>, re...@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...

>
> Hello everyone,
> So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?

It may be worth seeing if the thread in comp.lang.misc provides any more
support for the idea. You could also ask in other Go discussion forums
to see if anyone there would use a Go newsgroup. The more supporters you
can find, the better--it will be more obvious that the group should be
created, and when it is, it will have more lively and interesting
discussions.

When you think there's enough support to make the group worthwhile, you
can post a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) as described in the link
from your original post:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup

I'd suggest that such a group should be unmoderated--moderators becoming
unavailable seems to cause bigger problems these days than things like
spam or off-topic posting.

Kind regards,
R

[a cat]

Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <u6m01p$1ilrg$3...@dont-email.me>, a_...@example.com says...

>
> Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
> also like such a group.

People in this thread were supportive of the idea, so the next step is
for someone to write a Request For Discussion that formally proposes the
new group. This proposal can then be revised if necessary based on
people's feedback. Once a final version is reached, the Board can either
create the group or not depending on whether it still looks like there's
a demand for it.

The group proposal process is described here:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup

And there's an RFD template here (see section 2):
https://www.big-
8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)

The RFD should be crossposted to news.groups.proposals,
news.announce.newgroups, and any other groups that are likely to contain
people interested in the proposed group. comp.lang.misc seems likely to
be one such group; there may be others. Followups should be set to
news.groups.proposals.

So, who wants to step up and write the proposal?

Best regards,
Rayner

[Adam H. Kerman]

>Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
>also like such a group.

It's been more than a year. Has anyone posted to Usenet on the topic?

Anyone?

Bueller?

On Usenet, support for discussion of a topic is shown by actually
discussing the topic where it would be on topic, not by claiming you
support a newsgroup.

Show support with actual on topic discussion. Then, if there is enough
discussion, a decision can be made about moving it to a new group.

C'mon, guys. Hold discussion first, then consider whether a new group is
needed.

Short of a server being shut down, it is unlikely in the extreme that
any significant number of people will change their posting habits from a
Web discussion forum to Usenet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>It's been more than a year. Has anyone posted to Usenet on the topic?

I swore I would never participate in proposal discussion that takes place
inappropriately in this disgrace of a moderated newsgroup. I just violated
my own rule.

Sorry about that.

All proposal discussion for the Big 8 belongs in unmoderated
news.groups.

[a cat]

I may write a proposal once I have some more experience with Usenet.

[rek2 hispagatos]

I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
tell me next steps or where to do anything :(

HappyHacking

--
{gemini,https}://{,rek2.}hispagatos.org
https://hispagatos.space/@rek2
[https|gemini]://2600.Madrid

[sticks]

On 7/2/2023 11:54 AM, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
> I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
> tell me next steps or where to do anything :(

Did you even read the link in your post?

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <u7s2d7$3bdfg$4...@dont-email.me>, re...@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...

>
> I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
> tell me next steps or where to do anything :(

The next step is in the link from your original post. You need section 2
(Request for Discussion):

https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup

There is an RFD template here (see the section "A Newsgroup Creation RFD
Template"):

https://www.big-
8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)

You should crosspost the RFD to the following groups:
- news.announce.newgroups
- news.groups.proposals
- any other newsgroups where there are people who are likely to be

interested in the proposed group.

Set followups to news.groups.proposals (if you do not know how to do
this in your newsreader software, please ask).

People can then reply in news.groups.proposals to support or oppose the
new group, or to offer feedback on the proposal.

Regards,
Rayner

[rek2 hispagatos]

Hello Rayner, thanks for the reply,
I am almost sure we already did that stage? maybe not, it was around
this time last year or so, I remember I gived up because I got busy and
was confused on the next steps after posting it to diff groups and
getting good replies.

Will double check, I will also like to add a rust programming group not
just GO. so will take some time to read again and start over if that
makes more sense at this stage?

If anyone will like to help me with GO/RUST please let me know please.

[Rayner Lucas]

In article <u7ulg6$3ne7p$2...@dont-email.me>, re...@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...

>
> Hello Rayner, thanks for the reply,
> I am almost sure we already did that stage? maybe not, it was around
> this time last year or so, I remember I gived up because I got busy and
> was confused on the next steps after posting it to diff groups and
> getting good replies.
>
> Will double check, I will also like to add a rust programming group not
> just GO. so will take some time to read again and start over if that
> makes more sense at this stage?
>
> If anyone will like to help me with GO/RUST please let me know please.

There were threads here and in news.groups about the possibility of
starting a Go newsgroup (the "informal discussion" stage), but as far as
I can see nobody wrote an RFD.

So your next steps are:
1. Write the RFD.
2. Post it (crosspost to relevant groups and set followups to here).
3. Get people who want a Go newsgroup to reply in support of it.

Step 3 is important: it needs to be clear that a new group will have
enough participants to be useful.

Regards,
Rayner

[John]

I also recommend styling it correctly as "Go", not "GO", in the RFD.

I am interested in a Go group myself, so feel free to bounce a draft RFD
off me if you wish.

john

[rek2 hispagatos]

Hello, sorry, just saw this.
I just submitted a RFD is waiting for approval to get it posted,
will be glad to get some help specially because
my first language is Spanish and I am not living in the US any more so
have a lack of practice on my English :D

yes def Go will look better than GO :) if I added GO we should def
change that for RFD 2.

Happy Hacking

[Syber Shock]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 14:36:27 CST
rek2 hispagatos <re...@hispagatos.org.invalid> wrote:

> Hello, sorry, just saw this.
> I just submitted a RFD is waiting for approval to get it posted,
> will be glad to get some help specially because
> my first language is Spanish and I am not living in the US any more so
> have a lack of practice on my English :D
>
> yes def Go will look better than GO :) if I added GO we should def
> change that for RFD 2.
>
> Happy Hacking

Look for Message-ID: <bc6049814ea50c3f2796d5913b565f1c$1...@sybershock.com>
in newsgroup 'comp.infosystems.gemini' for information on an
alternative in progress. User 'vga256' is hacking on a method to allow
client-side users to create newsgroups in the local NNTP spool. This
would begin progress toward making RFDs obsolete.

--
SugarBug | https://sybershock.com

[Syber Shock]

For heaven's sake, just create the group. It's not like people are
asking for new groups every day.

Aside from mentally deranged trolls, psyop spam, and warez and movie
pirates, there's approximately six or seven dozen dedicated users of
the whole Usenet. This bureaucracy is unnecessary in the current
circumstance.

Here comes a brain tornado:

The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...

user.*

ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
interaction.

If you are worried about a spammer mounting a flood attack with group
creation, build a proof-of-work verification into the protocol
extension and require 3 or 5 peers in good standing to approve for
the proposed group to propagate automatically.

The person holding the user group key can sign sub-moderator keys for
message moderation and revoke them at will. Then we'd never need to see
another RFD again, except for the news.* hierarchy for system
administration stuff. Moderation would be strictly by signature with no
email forwarding necessary. If a valid signature command propagates,
then it shall be done as the signature commandeth.

This old way of doing things made sense back in the days of 9600 baud
dialup and UUCP. It serves no real purpose now. A $100/yr. VPS can
handle an entire text Usenet feed with a 3-5 year history. Who cares if
there are another 50 or 100 thousand orphan groups created by users?
The file to list them would take at most 4-6 MB of disk space. The list
can be auto-pruned after a period of inactivity. The protocol extension
could serve the groups list by query keyword or 3+ char substring
instead of the whole list at once.

Administrators can decide whether or not to allow such feeds on their
servers or whether they deal with the extension at all.

IMHO torturing these poor users with endless back and forth about
arcane and ancient bureaucracy just to create a group is just a
technocratic form of digital child abuse at the hands of hippie boomer
geeks. The procedural response is no longer proportionate to the
situation or the current technology.

--
SugarBug | https://sybershock.com

Giving digital hippie boomer geeks the tools for digital seppuku.

[John]

You don't need permission from news.groups.proposals to do this, you can
set up your hierarchy today if it so pleases you.

Personally I carry the Big-8 on my server because there's some semblance
of organization. Besides, it's not like it took a particular avalanche
of support to get comp.infosystems.gemini created, absolute *torrent* of
activity that it is today.

john

[Andy Burns]

Syber Shock wrote:

> ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
> create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
> client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
> and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
> interaction.
>
> If you are worried about a spammer mounting a flood attack with group
> creation, build a proof-of-work verification into the protocol
> extension

Why don't you go the whole hog and turn usenet groups into digital currency?

[Richard Kettlewell]

Syber Shock <ad...@sybershock.com> writes:
> For heaven's sake, just create the group. It's not like people are
> asking for new groups every day.
>
> Aside from mentally deranged trolls, psyop spam, and warez and movie
> pirates, there's approximately six or seven dozen dedicated users of
> the whole Usenet. This bureaucracy is unnecessary in the current
> circumstance.
>
> Here comes a brain tornado:
>
> The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
> named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...
>
> user.*
>
> ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
> create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
> client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
> and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
> interaction.

Deployment would take a while.

In the meantime there’s alt.*, or free.* if you want to create groups
with zero process.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Matija Nalis]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 03:34:04 CST, Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Syber Shock <ad...@sybershock.com> writes:
>> The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
>> named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...
>>
>> user.*
>>
>> ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to

what does ISC have to do with creating a NNTP extension?
Anybody with a will and time to do so can do that as well.

> Who cares if there are another 50 or 100 thousand orphan groups created by users?

Many users do, actually.

In such case, one would need to wade through 50-100k orphan groups just to
see what might interest them, and many find that a collosal waste of time.

Even when looking for just one specific thing, and filtering for that
specific substring pattern (provided your newsreader has that functionality!)
like "go" is a pain (one must choose between golf, gothic, gov, gossip,
goabroad, gonzo, golive... etc).

And when there are several groups about same subject (which happens with such
unrestricted group creation, especially when not all server carry all
groups), it often might lead to diversification of community, which leads to
userbase falling below critical mass, and group dying out (groups with little
or no articles are unlikely to attract new users, which makes them even less
popular, etc. ad infinitum)

>> create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
>> client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
>> and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
>> interaction.
>
> Deployment would take a while.
>
> In the meantime there’s alt.*, or free.* if you want to create groups
> with zero process.

I agree, I don't see what new user.* would bring to the table.

You could send newgroup control messages since times immemorable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_message#newgroup

In the end, it's all down to what individual newsadmin POLICY is on THEIR news server.

- They want users to be able to create groups unrestrictedly, they can enable that without limits.
- They want only authorized users to do so, they can enable specific PGP-signed users to do so.
- They don't want anybody but themselves to do so, they can disable automatic group creation.
- They want to create anything anything anyone suggest, they check a group or email or support phone or ticketing system or whatever and create whatever anybody asks for.
- They want some kind of show of interest and explanation before creating group, they have something like RFDs or some voting site before deciding to create the group.
- They want some kind of voting backed up by money to dissuade trolls, the create a gofundme or whatever, and create group only if enough money is connected.

or anything else basically.

In most cases (expect abandonware autopilot sites with "no creation of groups
at all" and perhaps "PGP-signed autocreation" policy) being newsadmin will
require SOME time to admin the news server, including group creation/removal.
It's not like there is overwhelming amount of effort those days, but it
requires newsadmin to have some interest and will and time and ability.

--
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.