REC.MUSIC.CHRISTIAN.MINISTRY
Kim Anthony Gentes
REC.MUSIC.CHRISTIAN.MINISTRY
YES, YES, YES!!!YES, YES, YES!!!
YES, YES, YES!!!YES, YES, YES!!!
YES, YES, YES!!!YES, YES, YES!!!
YES, YES, YES!!!YES, YES, YES!!!
LETS DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
=============================
--
Kim Anthony Gentes +-----------------------------------+
Honeywell IAC, Phoenix, AZ | My moto : |
kge...@ips.iac.honeywell.com | "If you can't, understand it." |
+-----------------------------------+
Cindy Williams
Hi Kim and everyone who wants to get this going!
Ditto the above!
I've counted 11+ postings from folks who whould like to see a news group
for raise and worship.
REC.MUSIC.CHRISTIAN.MINISTRY sounds great! I don't know how to set up a
news group, or I'd offer to do it.
Is anybody here willing to set it up?
God Bless....& Let's do it!
Cindy
--
Cindy Williams
MS 14U-110
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
2011 North Shoreline Blvd.
Mtn. View, Ca 94039
cin...@corp.sgi.com
(415) 390-5858
matthew revell
Steve Elliott
>
>I've counted 11+ postings from folks who whould like to see a news group
What a shame they feel so inhibited that they won't normally
post to rec.music.christian.
Steve
--
s...@uk.ac.lancs.comp
Department of Computing, SECaMS Building,
University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
PHONE: +44 524 593783.
Kim Anthony Gentes
|> In article <Cssys...@odin.corp.sgi.com> cin...@order.corp.sgi.com (Cindy Williams) writes:
|> >
|> >I've counted 11+ postings from folks who whould like to see a news group
|> >for raise [sic] and worship.
|>
|> What a shame they feel so inhibited that they won't normally
|> post to rec.music.christian.
It's not that were "inhibited", for the most part (although this
might be the case with some), but more that we'd like some place
for a focused discussion in the area of praise and worship.
To take your point further, one could have said :
"What a shame you feel so inhibited that you won't normally
post to rec.music "
Notice the dropped "christian" sub-hierarchy. The point
is that these newsgroups are set up to allow diversity (through
subgroups) and commonality (through higher groupings such as
"rec.music", and in my opinion "rec.music.christian") to
be represented in an open forum.
By the way, you are right on one point : "shame" should
not be a reason for starting a group.
|>
|> Steve
|> --
Cindy Williams
|> What a shame they feel so inhibited that they won't normally
|> post to rec.music.christian.
|>
|> Steve
Hi Steve-
I don't think it's that folks are inhibited. I know for me, I'd like a
group that is more focused on worship. Rec.music.christian is great, but
there are a lot of people here. Most seem to talk about groups, albums,
songs on albums, artists, etc. Sometime it's hard to wade through all the
postings.
Since I'm involved in worship as a ministry rather than the christian music
industry, it would be nice to have a more specific forum to chat.
That's my motivation, anyways.
See Ya!
Cindy :)
--
Cindy Williams
Steven Foust
>>I've counted 11+ postings from folks who whould like to see a news group
>>for raise [sic] and worship.
s...@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Steve Elliott) writes:
>What a shame they feel so inhibited that they won't normally
>post to rec.music.christian.
Did you ever think that some of us have tight time schedules, and
thus would appreciate a separate group wherein the sub-topic of
praise and worship music could be found? Having to walk through all
of the stuff on new CD's, Michael English, etc. makes it kind of hard
to chase down just the stuff you're looking for at times -- esp. when
you've only got a limited time to do so because of conflicting
appointments!
--
.---. .-----------
/ \ __ / ------
/ / \( )/ -----Steven J. Foust fal...@mcs.com
////// ' \/ ` --- Lombard, IL 60148 CIS: 70632,3177
//// / // : : ---
// / / /` '-- Attention Deficit Disorder ftp site:
// //..\\ ftp.mcs.com:/mcsnet.users/falcon/add
----UU----UU-------------------------------------------------
'//||\\`
''``
Logan Shaw
> Hi Steve-
>
> I don't think it's that folks are inhibited. I know for me, I'd like a
> group that is more focused on worship. Rec.music.christian is great, but
> there are a lot of people here. Most seem to talk about groups, albums,
> songs on albums, artists, etc. Sometime it's hard to wade through all the
> postings.
>
> Since I'm involved in worship as a ministry rather than the christian music
> industry, it would be nice to have a more specific forum to chat.
Personally, I think it would be better to put it in soc.religion.christian.
If I had my way (I would tear this building down...), they wouldn't
have created "soc.religion.christian.youth-work"; instead, there would
be "soc.religion.christian.ministry.youth". And, for discussion about
leading praise and worship, there would be a group called
"soc.religion.christian.ministry.music".
However, things being as they are, it might be reasonable to put it in
"soc.religion.christian.worship-leading" or something like that. After
all, the music is sorta just the mechanics of the worship leading, so
it's questionable whether it should really go in the rec.music.* hierarchy.
Hey, and while we're on the topic, I just want to mention that I went to
a church service yesterday that was -nothing- but a prayer and worship
night. 'Twas very refreshing and renewing, and definitely a good idea.
Adios,
Logan
--
The genius of France can be seen at a glance
And it's not in their fabled fashion scene
It's not that they're mean, or their wine, or cuisine
I refer of course to the guillotine
(the French knew how to lynch)
T-Bone Burnett, "I Can Explain Everything"
Steven Foust
>In article <CtDEv...@odin.corp.sgi.com>, cin...@order.corp.sgi.com (Cindy Williams) writes:
>> I don't think it's that folks are inhibited. I know for me, I'd like a
>> group that is more focused on worship. Rec.music.christian is great, but
>> there are a lot of people here. Most seem to talk about groups, albums,
>> songs on albums, artists, etc. Sometime it's hard to wade through all the
>> postings.
>Personally, I think it would be better to put it in soc.religion.christian.
>If I had my way (I would tear this building down...), they wouldn't
>have created "soc.religion.christian.youth-work"; instead, there would
>be "soc.religion.christian.ministry.youth". And, for discussion about
>leading praise and worship, there would be a group called
>"soc.religion.christian.ministry.music".
>However, things being as they are, it might be reasonable to put it in
>"soc.religion.christian.worship-leading" or something like that. After
>all, the music is sorta just the mechanics of the worship leading, so
>it's questionable whether it should really go in the rec.music.* hierarchy.
Actually, we're *not* talking about the mechanics of worship leading
-- those are skills you would learn in a music education class. We're
discussing a group which would be used to discuss the sub-genre of
Christian music which is designed with the specific goal of leading
the listener to worship the Lord.
Ie, we're wanting a group which would be used to discuss new worship
music which has come out, current music which is out, etc. Certainly,
there's going to be *some* cross-over of things like "Here's my top
10 list of praise songs" and such like. But there, you're getting
people saying the same *types* of things as already happens on *here*
(as in "In my opinion, these are the top 10 groups in christian music").
Is it really too much for someone to simply request a separate area
to discuss a sub-class, which in *some* people's minds is actually
more appropriate to Christian music? (As in that the origins of music
in the church were forms of worship and praise.)
Cindy Williams
writes:
[snip]
>>And, for discussion about leading praise and worship, there would be a
group >>called "soc.religion.christian.ministry.music".
>> However, things being as they are, it might be reasonable to put it in
>> "soc.religion.christian.worship-leading" or something like that. After
>> all, the music is sorta just the mechanics of the worship leading, so
>> it's questionable whether it should really go in the rec.music.*
hierarchy.
As a fairly new and just-getting-litterate net user :-), can someone
explain these hierarchies, how they were created and why some are harder to
create new groups in?
Thanks,
Me.
--
Cindy Williams
MS 14U-110
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
2011 North Shoreline Blvd.
Mtn. View, Ca 94039
cin...@corp.sgi.com
Linda M. Kreitz
: In article <CtIsA...@taligent.com>, lo...@taligent.com (Logan Shaw)
QUICK OVERVIEW FOR GETTING NEW USENET GROUP STARTED
1. Discussion of the idea. If your proposal directly effects an
existing group you might want to "test the waters" first to see if
there is interest...such as this group.
2. RFD (Request for Discussion). The proponent (you) posts an RFD to
all interested groups (possibly "religion" ) plus news.announce.newsgroups
and news.groups. If you do not include news.announce.newsgroups it is not an "official" RFD.
3. Discussion in news.groups. People react to the RFD, express support,
express loathing, or perhaps offer suggestions. If you significantly
change your RFD based on discussion in this group, you should issue
a second RFD as in step 2. AFTER discussion period, a name and
charter are agreed upon, and also a determination if a moderator is
needed.
4. Voting. Contact rdip...@qualcomm.com regarding having do the actual
drudgery of voting for you. The vote should usually start around
30 days after the first RFD, an no earlier than 21 days after. The
votetaker will handle the official CFVs (Call for Votes). The voting
will run 22 - 30 days, usually 22.
5. Results. After the voting has ended, the votetaker compiles the results
and posts them to the net. If the group passes it will be newsgrouped
after five days, though it may take awhile to get to some sites. If the
group fails, it can't be voted on for six months.
Above are only THE BASICS of creating a news group. I have a larger
file on this...but I have been having trouble posting THE WHOLE THING
to this group. The above was typed by hand (not a saved file). If someone
would mail me...I can send you the whole file and perhaps you could post
it for everyone.
Linda Kreitz
lm...@lehigh.edu
Ubove po
i
omgr an difo
Don Waugaman
|> In article <CtC6s...@comp.lancs.ac.uk>,
|> Steve Elliott <s...@comp.lancs.ac.uk> wrote:
|> >In article <Cssys...@odin.corp.sgi.com> cin...@order.corp.sgi.com (Cindy Williams) writes:
|> >>
|> >>I've counted 11+ postings from folks who whould like to see a news group
|> >>for raise [sic] and worship.
|> >
|> >What a shame they feel so inhibited that they won't normally
|> >post to rec.music.christian.
|> >
|> >Steve
|> >--
|>
|> Steve,
|>
|> That's because rec.music.christian has become mainly focused on CCM,
|> CCM artists, and musical venues which are not part of Praise and Worship
|> music. Would the majority of readers of this group tolerate a discussion
|> on the way to achieve a meaningful praise sound using 2 to 3 part harmony,
|> multiple
|> instruments, and tasteful ways of presentation as to not offend the
|> congregation? I personally believe not.
|>
|> Adam G.
Hmmm.... would the majority of the readers "tolerate" a discussion on such
topics..... I'd think so. Probably not many CCM fans would *participate*
in said discussion, but I see no reason why anyone would object to a thread
on P&W - of which I have seen several in the group at different times.
It definitely would fall under the group's charter (a criterion which many
recent threads have stretched considerably, IMHO).
I'm not objecting to any rec.music.christian.worship (or other similarly
named group), but the "if you newgroup it, they will come" method usually
does not work on Usenet. Rather, if P&W discussions started chewing up
large chunks of bandwidth, number of daily postings, etc. then creating a
new subgroup would be A Good Thing (tm). But, as a general rule, to issue
a CFV for a new newsgroup is something that should be done only if you're
pretty darn sure of success (2/3 yes, yes > no + 100 votes).
Anyway, to sum up: if you want to discuss achieving a meaningful praise
sound using 2 to 3 part harmony, multiple instruments, and tasteful ways
of presentation as not to offend the congregation - go for it! I doubt
I'd participate, I wouldn't object, either.
--
- Don Waugaman (d...@cs.arizona.edu) _|_ Will pun
In the Sonoran Desert, home of the phrase "It's a dry heat..." | for food
I hereby claim the standard disclaimer. | <><
gronczewski,adam e
Bob Miller
: Would the majority of readers of this group tolerate a discussion on the
: instruments, and tasteful ways of presentation as to not offend the
: congregation? I personally believe not.
Why don't you try it and see? I've got no problem with either CCM or PW
discussions. I've never seen complaints about the few such threads that have
happened here in the last three years. The gay flamefests I can do without;-)
Or could the issue really be to get some kind of ego-boosting legitimization
by having your very own brand-spanking-new newsgroup? (don't laugh, just read
news.groups for a year and you will see it in spades...e.g. "soc.islam.ahmadi"
or whatever it was...)
Bob(no, I'm not sinning against the HS for not supporting r.m.c.w..)Miller
r...@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com
Steven Foust
are working on developing a new group (and getting a maillist
going) here's the "rules"...
Message-Id: <1994072814...@ns1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 10:40:52 EDT
From: lm...@Lehigh.EDU (Linda Kreitz)
Subject: Rec.Music.Christian.Ministry
To: fal...@mcs.com
This file should give alot of detailed "how to's" of creating a new
usenet group.
---------------------------
The Discussion
1) A request for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted to
news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists at
all related to the proposed topic if desired. The group is moderated, and
the Followup-to: header will be set so that the actual discussion takes
place only in news.groups. Users on sites which have difficulty posting to
moderated groups may mail submissions intended for news.announce.newgroups
to newg...@uunet.uu.net.
The article should be cross-posted among the newsgroups, including
news.announce.newgroups, rather than posted as separate articles. Note that
standard behaviour for posting software is to not present the articles in
any groups when cross-posted to a moderated group; the moderator will handle
that for you.
2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated
or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be
determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement on
these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days of
discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead of
news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among
themselves. Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made,
going back to step 1) above.
3) Group advocates seeking help in choosing a name to suit the proposed
charter, or looking for any other guidance in the creation procedure, can
send a message to group-...@uunet.uu.net; a few seasoned news administrato
rs
are available through this address.
The Vote
The Usenet Volunteer Votetakers (UVV) are a group of neutral third-party
vote-takers who currently handle vote gathering and counting for all newsgroup
proposals. Ron Dippold <rdip...@qualcomm.com> co-ordinates this group.
Contact him to arrange the handling of the vote. The mechanics of vote will
be handled in accord with the paragraphs below.
1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is
really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been
determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will
moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and
any other groups or mailing lists that the original request for discussion
might have been posted to. There should be minimal delay between the
end of the discussion period and the issuing of a call for votes.
The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast
a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a
vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly
permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes
to provided that they are on the same machine, to set up an address
different than that the article was posted from to mail votes to, or
to just accept replies to the call for votes article, as long as it
is clearly and explicitly stated in the call for votes article how
to cast a vote. If two addresses are used for a vote, the reply
address must process and accept both yes and no votes OR reject
them both.
2) The voting period should last for at least 21 days and no more than 31
days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote are. The exact
date that the voting period will end should be stated in the call for
votes. Only votes that arrive on the vote-taker's machine prior to this
date will be counted.
3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote,
provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for
casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat
of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). Partial vote
results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new
group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote.
It is permitted to post a "mass acknowledgement" in which all the names
of those from whom votes have been received are posted, as long as no
indication is made of which way anybody voted until the voting period
is officially over.
4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net
for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and
proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for
each member of the list) will not be counted.
5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote shall
count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response to. In particular,
a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name shall NOT be counted as
a vote for or against a newsgroup with a different name or charter,
a different moderated/unmoderated status or (if moderated) a different
moderator or set of moderators.
6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the
group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar
as proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to
be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote
for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not
counted as votes.
7) A vote should be run only for a single group proposal. Attempts to create
multiple groups should be handled by running multiple parallel votes rather
than one vote to create all of the groups.
The Result
1) At the completion of the voting period, the vote taker must post the
vote tally and the E-mail addresses and (if available) names of the voters
received to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists
to which the original call for votes was posted. The tally should include
a statement of which way each voter voted so that the results can be
verified.
2) AFTER the vote result is posted, there will be a 5 day waiting period,
beginning when the voting results actually appear in
news.announce.newgroups, during which the net will have a chance to
correct any errors in the voter list or the voting procedure.
3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might
invalidate the vote, and if 100 more valid YES/create votes are received
than NO/don't create AND at least 2/3 of the total number of valid votes
received are in favor of creation, a newgroup control message may be sent
out. If the 100 vote margin or 2/3 percentage is not met, the group should
not be created.
4) The newgroup message will be sent by the news.announce.newgroups moderator
at the end of the waiting period of a successful vote. If the new group is
moderated, the vote-taker should send a message during the waiting period to
David C. Lawrence <ta...@uunet.uu.net> with both the moderator's contact
address and the group's submission address.
5) A proposal which has failed under point (3) above should not again be
brought up for discussion until at least six months have passed from the
close of the vote. This limitation does not apply to proposals which never
went to vote.
The Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted once a month - Comments to rdip...@qualcomm.com welcome!
So you want to create a newsgroup...
Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
form of politics, because the stakes are so low." He didn't know Usenet;
Welcome to the next level.
[ If you're more interested in the voting side than the creation side, a
good guide for the interested party or voter is the User's Guide to the
Changing USENET, maintained by sta...@skyking.oce.orst.edu (John
Stanley). ]
1. What This is All About
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet is a loosely knit anarchy - there is no controlling body which
forces any site on the net to choose which newsgroups they can carry.
Sites can create or remove groups at will - however, they can't expect
that everyone else will honor their decisions. Obviously, this can be
rather chaotic, so in time a set of customs has evolved to ease the
confusion and keep the creation of new groups to a point just below
critical mass.
Here's how it works: there is a general agreement among Usenet news
administrators that groups in the "big seven" (comp., misc., news., rec.,
sci., soc., talk.) hierarchies will only be honored at their sites if the
group passes the "official" voting procedures defined in the Guidelines.
Anyone can create a group if they figure out the correct message format
to do so, but it will only be carried on a minuscule number of sites, and
anyone posting to the group may be greeted with messages claiming that
the group is bogus.
The Guidelines, which you should read if you want to create a group, can
be found in the periodic posting "How to Create a New Usenet Group" in
news.announce.newusers, or ftp to ftp.uu.net, go to the directory
usenet/news.announce.newusers and get the file "Guidelines". If you
don't read this file and the group vote is canceled due to
irregularities, you have only yourself to blame.
But the Guidelines aren't the whole story. Another set of customs has
sprung up around newsgroup votings - mostly because there has been an
unfortunate number of sleazy tactics used in past group creation
attempts. As with Caesar's wife, a vote must be beyond reproach. If you
even accidentally violate one of these customs, you may find yourself
with a botched vote, a lot of wasted time, and a massive flamewar. The
purpose of this document is to help you through this potential minefield.
This is _not_ in any way an official document, it has no force of law -
rather it helps you with the informal conventions which have evolved over
the years.
Quick Glossary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CFV Call for votes. See the Guidelines.
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions list - many groups have a FAQ
periodically posted to answer common questions.
Flame A heated attack in a message. Like fires, they spread.
Flamefest A general message war containing lots of flames.
News admin News administrator. Someone in charge of keeping Usenet
news running at a site. These are the people you have to
convince to carry your group.
Proponent The person who is the driving force behind the vote.
Generally the person who does the RFD and the work involved
in setting up the CFV.
RFD Request for discussion. See the Guidelines.
Votetaker The person who actually posts the CFVs and counts votes.
Usually not the proponent.
Quick Overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What's the general voting process?
A: There are five main stages. You _really_ should read the Guidelines
if you actually decide to go through with it, but this is a quick
summary.
1) Discussion of the idea. If your proposal directly effects an
existing group you might want to "test the waters" first to see if
there is interest.
2) RFD (Request for Discussion). The proponent (you) posts an RFD to
all interested groups plus news.announce.newgroups and news.groups.
If you don't include n.a.n, it's not an official RFD.
3) Discussion in news.groups. People react to the RFD, express
support, express loathing, or perhaps offer suggestions. If you
significantly change your RFD based on discussion in this group, you
should issue a second (or more) RFD as in step 2.
4) Voting. Contact rdip...@qualcomm.com regarding having do the
actual drudgery of voting for you. The vote should usually start
around 30 days after the first RFD, and no earlier than 21 days after.
The votetaker will handle the official CFVs (Call for Votes). The
voting will run 22 to 30 days, usually 22.
5) Results. After the voting has ended, the votetaker compiles the
results and posts them to the net. If the group passes it will be
newgrouped after five days, though it may take a while to get to some
sites. If the group fails, it can't be voted on for six months.
General Suggestions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why so sanctimonious?
A: Because the politics can be so vicious. You can ignore all of this,
but in a controversial group proposal, say involving politics,
culture, or Star Trek, there are people just waiting for you to
breathe wrong so they can call for a vote invalidation. You don't
have to satisfy me, you have to satisfy them. These "rules" already
exist. Read this now and you could save yourself a lot of hassle in
the long run.
Q: What's the best way to find out how to propose a group and run a vote?
A: Read the guidelines as above, read this document, read news.groups for
a few months - you're guaranteed at least one enlightening flamefest.
You'll also see plenty of RFDs and CFVs, and see the reaction to them.
Q: If I don't violate any of the "official" rules, how can my vote be
invalidated?
A: Remember, this is all by agreement between system administrators. Any
news admin can declare that they will not be carrying a group for any
reason. If it's a respected admin, others may join. This can
snowball to where you have an "official" group that nobody carries.
And if the news.announce.newgroups moderator(s) decide you violated
the spirit of the rules, you're dead in the water.
Q: What's the best policy in order to avoid any minefields?
A: Full honesty, full disclosure, adherence to the rule and spirit of the
Guidelines. If you're going to do something, such as send the CFV to
a mailing list, _say so_ in your CFV! It's amazing how much pain
something like this can avoid.
Q: This document doesn't tell me what I need to know!
A: group-...@uunet.uu.net is a mailing list of administrators who can
help you on the tough questions, if neither this or news.groups helps.
Thinking about a Group Vote
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do I really want to do this?
A: That depends - it's a lot of effort, even with some help from
programs. It's a lot of time - initial discussion, a month for RFD, a
month for CFV, some time for results and creation. All told, from two
to three months of your time.
Q: Is this going to be a lot of work?
A: Going through the entire RFD, CFV, and voting process can take quite a
bit of time. You've got to meet all your deadlines, face the endless
bickering on news.groups, and thrash out some sort of compromise with
all the highly opinionated people who have their own ideas about how
the group charter should look. Don't go into it lightly.
Q: What are some alternatives?
A: Consider a mailing list. This can be set up instantly, and has the
advantages of being fairly focused and having a smaller number of
people out to cause chaos.
Q: What about reorganizing existing groups instead of just creating a
group for a new subject?
A: This is hairy - it's a whole level of magnitude above just creating a
new group. There is only one standard reason for splitting or
reorganizing an existing set of groups - overwhelming traffic. This
usually means about 200 messages a day, which can make it tough even
for someone using a good newsreader.
Alternative: try getting people to use keywords in subjects, such as
U7 for Ultima VII in a games group. If most people are considerate
this way, killfiles can easily kill or select desired articles. Not
having a newsreader with killfile capability is not generally viewed
with sympathy.
Who's going to take charge? You really shouldn't take on the
responsibilities of a reorganization unless you've fully handled at
least one group vote.
If you _really_ want to consider splitting, thoroughly discuss the
possible split on the affected groups before even thinking about an
RFD. Work out what you think the new groups should be. You want
enough of a split to divide up the traffic, but you don't want too
many new groups, and you don't want the subject matter of groups to
overlap. Do you need to remove any existing groups? Because of the
complex nature of reorganizations, this should be worked out in
advance. Then do the RFD if there's a consensus for it.
If one group is especially opposed to the reorganization, or there is
lots of opposition to one group, leave it out, unless you want to get
a lot of all-NO spite votes. And remember, each group creation or
removal is a separate vote, even though they can all be on the same
ballot. If some things pass and others don't, weird results can
result. Remember, you can always do things in two or more steps
(votes).
Suggestions on RFDs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What should I know about the group name?
A: Check existing groups for hints on appropriate names. Especially
check to see if a group already meets your needs! Also, although few
systems are affected anymore, each component of the group name should
be 14 characters or less. For example, foo.bar.bletch has three
components, "foo", "bar", and "bletch", all less than 15 characters,
so no problem. sci.physics.particle-accelerators, on the other hand,
is out, as the last component is 21 characters. Shorten it down.
The naming is very important - it should be hierarchical, with each
extension in the hierarchy further subdividing the subject. Don't add
a period just as punctuation (for example, foo.bar.don.rippold is bad,
use foo.bar.don-rippold)!
Most new groups fit in nicely at three levels deep... usually
comp.sys.something or rec.arts.something. See if your subject fits
nicely under existing hierarchies. New second level hierarchies, such
as rec.something, are usually frowned on unless somehow Usenet has
managed to overlook a group for a major subject, such as rec.toys.
The "big 7" hierarchies covered by these rules are:
comp Computer related.
misc Anything that doesn't go somewhere else - not used much
news Dealing with Usenet itself.
rec Recreational. Fun stuff.
sci Related to the sciences.
soc Social issues - for discussion of such issues, or certain social
backgrounds, such as soc.culture.italian.
talk Heated debate about controversial issues - politics and religion,
for instance.
There are also the "other hierarchies" such as bit. and bionet. The
most important of these is alt., which operates on different and much
looser "rules." Read alt.config for information about this.
If you just can't come up with something, group-...@uunet.uu.net is
a mailing list of administrators who can help you.
Q: Where should I post the RFD?
A: All RFDs _must_ be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups. Any which
don't do this are invalid, which can cause problems when you try to
start a CFV. You should also crosspost to news.groups and set
"Followup-To: news.groups" where discussion should take place. If you
don't do it, the moderator has to. Also crosspost to groups which
might be interested, but don't go overboard. A good way to avoid
confusion here and when you post the CFV is to just list the groups in
the body of the RFD.
If your site won't let you post to a moderated group, send your RFD to
announce-...@uunet.uu.net.
Since news.announce.newgroups is moderated, your posting will not
appear in _any_ of the groups until the moderator approves the
posting. Be patient. Don't go posting it to the other groups
yourself; this will irritate people. Also, the moderator may notice
problems in your proposal, and can help you correct them before they
get posted.
Q: How long does the RFD discussion go on?
A: The minimum period of RFD discussion before you can issue the CFV,
even if the consensus of all posters is "good idea, lets do it!" is 21
days by preference of the news.announce.newgroups moderator. If the
RFD takes much longer than 30 days, the discussion should be taken
offline until a consensus can be reached.
Keep in mind that you can work out many of the hairy details in
advance before ever posting an RFD - this is what has been done in
several tricky reorganizations and has worked rather well. The
group(s) can take their time working out all the details, then post
the RFD, and all you have to deal with then are suggestions from
news.groups readers, which should be possible to do in under 30 days.
Q: How many times should I post the RFD?
A: Usually just once. Another RFD is used only if there have been
significant changes to the proposal since the first RFD and you want
to involve those who don't read news.groups / news.announce.newgroups
in the discussion again. In other words, not all that often.
Suggestions on Moderation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Who should moderate a group, if it is moderated?
A: It should be someone respected, who has a fast news connection (no
leaf nodes), and has the time to do a good job of it. The moderator
kills or nurtures the moderated group, so choose wisely.
In addition, the moderator should be able to set up a separate account
or mailing address just for moderation purposes.
Q: What if the moderator needs to go on vacation?
A: It's an excellent idea to name a backup moderator at group proposal
time. If the moderator ever needs to disappear for an extended period
of time, the backup moderator takes over until the moderator returns.
Q: How about getting rid of the moderator?
A: There is _no_ official way to get rid of a moderator without their
consent! Even if they turn out to be a bum who never does anything,
you can't easily replace them. Thus, take great care with your
moderation guidelines.
Suggestions on CFVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Should I take the CFV myself?
A: For many reasons, group-advice and the news.announce.newgroups
moderator suggest you use the services of an experienced neutral
votetaker. You can email rdip...@qualcomm.com about having a member
of the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers run the vote for you.
Also, Jonathan Kamens has a vote server running, which has been used
quite successfully in the past for controversial votes. " People who
want to use my server to collect votes for a Usenet vote should
contact me by sending mail to j...@gza.com. I need to know what the
name of the newsgroup(s) being voted on are, when the voting period
will start, and when the voting period will end. I will send back
voting instructions to include in the CFV, and then the vote organizer
should send me back the CFV so that I can check it before it is
submitted to news.announce.newgroups. If the vote organizer wants a
list of voters during the vote to post a mass ACK, he/she should
contact me when he/she wants the list. He/she should also contact me
when the vote is over to get a final tally of who voted which way."
Q: Which groups should you have the votetaker post the CFV to?
A: All CFV's _must_ be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups, and should
be crossposted news.groups. Also to other interested groups, but
don't go overboard - the groups you posted the RFD to are a good
guide. This is in the Guidelines, but is violated so often it is
worth repeating. Please post only to groups that are related to the
subject of your CFV.
Q: What if I forget or don't notice an appropriate group until after the
CFV has been posted?
A: First, note that is should be an _appropriate_ group. You have two
choices. First, if the second CFV has not been posted yet, the group
may be added to that CFV, but the votetaker will add a note at the top
of the CFV letting the news.announce.newgroups moderator know what's
happened. He may overrule the addition.
The second choice is to post a note in the group mentioning that the
CFV is going on, sorry this group was missed, and please read article
"CFV: the.group.name" in news.announce.newgroups if you are interested
in voting. Don't just go and post the CFV there. It's effectively the
same thing, but appearances are everything.
Q: How long should the CFV run and how many times should it be posted?
A: Standard length of a vote is 22 days. The vote can run as long as 31
days, but this usually doesn't accomplish anything except delay the
group for another week and a half. There are normally two CFVs
posted. Once on the initial day, and the second a week after that or
halfway into the vote. The votetaker will take care of this.
Q: Can the CFV be sent to mailing lists?
A: Yes, but the people on the mailing list should be able to read the new
group, if created, or else you have people voting on something they'll
never see, which may cause some raised eyebrows. And of course the
mailing list should be intimately related to the subject of the
proposed group.
Q: How should the CFV be sent to a mailing list?
A: First, use the full disclosure tactic. Let the votetaker know which
mailing lists the CFV should go to, so he can note them in the CFV as
required. Either the votetaker or the proponent can do the actual
mailing, but make sure it is done _only_ after the official CFV has
appeared in news.announce.newgroups, or the votes received will be
invalid.
Q: What's the big deal about mailing lists?
A: One of the best ways to get your vote canceled is to send the CFV to a
mailing list without following the above procedures. Disclose in
advance!
Q: Can I campaign for or against the group(s)?
A: The rule is that the votetaker can't do any campaigning. If you're
not the votetaker (and you likely will not be), you can campaign.
Q: Can I vote on the group?
A: You bet. One person, one vote, and even though you're the proponent
you're also a voter.
Q: Can I find out how the vote is going?
A: No. The votetaker, by the Guidelines, may not reveal to _anyone_ how
the vote is going, even to the proponent. If they do, the vote is
rendered invalid. So don't even ask.
Q: Any other hints?
A: The votetaker will take care of the mechanics of the CFV presentation.
Your job is to come up with the best group charter you can.
Suggestions After the Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: The group passed! My job is over, right?
A: Wrong. Don't be caught napping. Your new group will be visited by
plenty of people who never saw the RFD or CFV and want to know what's
up. Even people who know what the group is for may not be familiar
with proper etiquette.
Q: How about a FAQ?
A: Good idea. It's a Good Thing to have a embryonic Frequently Asked
Questions list which can be posted as soon as the group is created
that explains the nature of the group, including the charter. It will
grow, but it's good to have one to start with. In fact, if you create
a FAQ before the CFV is posted, and include it in the CFV, it may
answer the questions of those who are unsure whether or not they want
to vote for the group - it's an indicator that the group may be of
similar high quality.
Your FAQ should definitely encourage the use of keywords in the
subject line, for help with killfiles. For example, in
rec.arts.comics, MARVEL, DC, or INDY in the subject, as in "Subject:
DC: Sandman #92", are suggested. These will depend on the nature of
your group.
Q: It's going to be moderated, is there anything special to do?
A: Yes. Read the Guidelines, and as soon as the vote passes, follow the
instructions on mailing the moderator's addresses to the specified
people who maintain the official moderators lists.
Whoever is moderating should have another account or mailing address
created which is for nothing but postings to the moderated group.
This way, there is no possibility of confusion as to personal mail and
potential posts, among other advantages. This may take some time to
set up, and should be done as soon as possible.
Q: The group failed! When can I try again?
A: In six months. Consider the results, though, so you don't waste your
time again. If it failed miserably, you might try a mailing list
instead. If it was a close vote, consider any flaws in the proposal.
_
/ / Linda Kreitz (\
/ ) lm...@lehigh.edu ( \
_( (_ _ _ _) )_
(((\ \> /_> <_\ </ /)))
(\\\\ \_/ / \ \_/ ////)
\ / \ /
\ _/ \_ /
/ / (215)758-4140 \ \
/ / \ \
James Langdell
within rec.music.christian is that this is a very high-traffic group
that in practice is focused on rather different genres of music--and more
from a listening than a participatory point of view. After getting the
impression of the general group, people who have posted on this topic in
the past (say, up to a year ago) didn't get much of any response. And, because
there were so many messages coming into this group, most sites didn't hold onto
any given message long enough for more people to come across a new topic that
wasn't part of the existing gist of the group.
That's why a newsgroup separate from rec.music.christian seemed like
a good way to provide a place for worship/praise/ministry musical
discussions. If it was a lower traffic group in the first place,
a different topic with a different audience could co-exist, but
r.m.c has too much of its own identity and flow for this to be likely
to work. (In some other cases, I'd scoff at the "If you build it,
they will come" philosophy about newsgroups. But here's a case where
the seemingly-appropriate newsgroup just didn't function in a way
that a new topic could establish itself.)
Now that Matt Hewn has taken the step of staring up a mailing list,
the response (100 subscribers in a week) suggests that the people
are there to sustain a newsgroup. It's also provided a point of
discussion that more people have talked *substantively* about worship
music *IN* r.m.c in a way that might finally sustain the topic here
as well. (Thank you, Kim Gentes!)
But, given all the complaints about how big r.m.c is and how it would
be desirable to somehow split it, why not split off this topic *before*
it adds too much to the already huge flow of messages in r.m.c?
--James Langdell jam...@eng.sun.com
Sun Microsystems Mountain View, Calif.
Matt Hewn
>I'm not objecting to any rec.music.christian.worship (or other similarly
>named group), but the "if you newgroup it, they will come" method usually
>does not work on Usenet. Rather, if P&W discussions started chewing up
>large chunks of bandwidth, number of daily postings, etc. then creating a
>new subgroup would be A Good Thing (tm).
Actually, if the worship mailing list I just atarted is any indication,
People will come. There are now close to 100 subscribers, with more
posts than that in the 3 days it has been running.
If any of you are interested, please mail to worship...@uiuc.edu,
not my personal address.
--
Matt Hewn <matt...@uiuc.edu>
--
Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth.
Truth is absolute.
John Streck
music. Would the majority of readers of this group tolerate a discussion
on the way to achieve a meaningful praise sound using 2 to 3 part harmony,
multiple >instruments, and tasteful ways of presentation as to not offend
the >congregation? I personally believe not.
Oh, I don't know. We've tolerated the great homosexuality debate, the
great language debate, the great Christian metal debate, et al.
Personally, I think such a discussion would be more than welcome here.
Just don't crosspost it to *.thrash, like everything else seems to be
these days.
john streck
jmst...@u.washington.edu