Pre-RFD - uk.local.solent
Phil Dye
In <32fb91f9...@news.ftech.net> rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk (Roy Stilling) writes:
>Okay, as promised, here is a proposed RFD for uk.local.solent. I'd to
>see what folks who use the existing solent.* newsgroups think first
>and see if there is support for it before submitting it to the uk.*
>group creation process.
[snip]
>Following discussions on the solent.chat newsgroup, the proponent
>feels that the success of uk.local.southwest indicates that a Solent
>newsgroup within the mainstream uk.* hierarchy would be more likely to
>attract local users and discourage inappropriate postings from
>outside, and thus fulfill the purpose of a local newsgroup for the
>Solent region.
Assuming this passes, I feel it would be a wise move to remove
solent.*. [1] Would it be worth making this clear somewhere in the RFD?
[snip]
>If more than 30 articles per day are posted the group may be split
>into an announce subgroup and a number of more specific subgroups.
If we do end up going into uk.*, then only going with the one group
initially would be a Good Thing (tm). There are *far* too many solent.*
groups at the moment, and indeed, that may be causing the current lack
of posts (see my previous post on possible trimming of solent.*).
[1] As far as is possible; ne...@tcp.co.uk has been recognised
as the 'guardian' of solent.* by UUnet and the INN news server
software, so it would make sense for us to issue any needed
contol messages.
--
Phil Dye | Work: p...@tcp.net.uk
Network Manager | Play: ph...@lart.ing.co.uk
Total Connectivity Providers | Consider myself properly disclaimed
'There are many ways to skin a cat. Currently, we are all eating fur'
Phil Dye
In <32f45961...@news.ftech.net> rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk (Roy Stilling) writes:
>Phil Dye <p...@tcp.net.uk> wrote:
>> Assuming this passes, I feel it would be a wise move to remove
>> solent.*. [1] Would it be worth making this clear somewhere in the RFD?
>I was a bit concerned that just suggesting an RFD might be treading on
>toes a bit, so didn't feel I had the right to prose removing solent.*
>outright. However, if you're happy to rmgroup solent.* if the
>proposal were to pass, I'll gladly add it.
Whilst I have already made my opinions known (and will save them for
if/when we get to a formal RFD), I don't believe that having uk.local.solent
and solent.* would be wise, and hence would support removal of solent.*
>Well, one day in and no-one's baying for my blood yet. But no-one's
>explicitly said that they agree either. Come on folks, let's have
>your opinions, even if it's a simple yay or nay!
Apathy in action... ;-)
Laurie Wing
The proposal to rationalise the current solent.* groups seems to be
laudible. Distinctions between the current range of groups get
blurred so inducing an infuriating amount of cross-posting, while
anything to choke off the instant money-making posts would be most
welcome.
I support your address proposal and agree your E-W geographical
coverage although the implicit inclusion of Northern Hampshire seems to
stretch Solent geography a bit far and might encroach on any group
covering N Hampshire, Surrey and SE Berkshire. I regret that I cannot
be more constructive than this as I don't know of any groups covering
the Farnborough/Camberley/Bracknell areas.
It did occur to me that one could have "commercial" and
"non-commercial" groups but, on reflection, I can't see that it
would be justified. A single group to start with would be
appropriate having regard to the desirability of containing the
cross-posting problem and current posting quantities. And I will live
with the occasional commercial plug.
Laurie Wing EMail: lw...@clausent.demon.co.uk
Chris Isbell
rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk (Roy Stilling) wrote:
>Okay, as promised, here is a proposed RFD for uk.local.solent. I'd to
>see what folks who use the existing solent.* newsgroups think first
>and see if there is support for it before submitting it to the uk.*
>group creation process.
Yes, go for it! This group is long overdue.
(Thanks to Phil Dye and TCP, the 'custodians' of the current.solent.*
groups, for their helpful and informed comment and information.)
--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, England
ch...@isbell.demon.co.uk
+44 1703 465367
Chris Watts
In article <32f45961...@news.ftech.net>, Roy Stilling
<rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk> writes
>
>I agree. The above bit was cribbed from the charter for
>uk.local.southwest I can't see us realistically hitting 30 posts per
>day for a while, but I'm happy to remove that bit if necessary, and we
>just cross that bridge when we come to it.
>
You could just make the number of posts before a split a vague quntity
such as "a large number of posts per day". Just a suggestion.
Basicaly I agree with what you have written.
Demon have a black hole close to their news servers at the moment so
news for us demonites is time warped by up to 60 hours.
--
Chris Watts homepage http://www.vineries.demon.co.uk
I reserve the right to borrow other peoples opinions if I like them.
Denis McMahon
rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk (Roy Stilling) wrote:
>Well, one day in and no-one's baying for my blood yet. But no-one's
>explicitly said that they agree either. Come on folks, let's have
>your opinions, even if it's a simple yay or nay!
Yep, I agree that there's good arguments to (a) rationalise the number
of Solent groups and (b) get them under the uk.local. hierarchy.
If the new group takes off, anyone see a problem with me gating it to
the local Fidonet boards in the "Solent" net like I do the newsgroups
at the moment?
Rgds
Denis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Denis McMahon EMail dmcm...@edlgu4.ericsson.se |
| Any comments are my own and do not reflect the opinions of my employer |
| or any other persons or organisations with which I may be afiliated |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Flux
IOIn article <32fcee5b...@news.ftech.net>, Roy Stilling
<rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk> writes
>de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk (Denis McMahon) wrote:
>
>> rp...@stilling.ftech.co.uk (Roy Stilling) wrote:
>>
>> >Well, one day in and no-one's baying for my blood yet. But no-one's
>> >explicitly said that they agree either. Come on folks, let's have
>> >your opinions, even if it's a simple yay or nay!
>>
>> Yep, I agree that there's good arguments to (a) rationalise the number
>> of Solent groups and (b) get them under the uk.local. hierarchy.
>>
>> If the new group takes off, anyone see a problem with me gating it to
>> the local Fidonet boards in the "Solent" net like I do the newsgroups
>> at the moment?
>
>folks posting on solent.* (but then, I don't recall seeing many of
>*any* people posting on solent.*!) or do you all have Internet
>accounts these days that you use for that?
>
IOW resident here new to Internet/news groups. Seems a good idea to
have a local articulate newsgroup as a respite from some of the very
peculiar stuff that abounds elsewhere on the network. It gets my
vote...
--
Isabel Flux