RFD: delete newsgroup uk.org.starlink.misc
Graham Drabble
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
delete newsgroup uk.org.starlink.misc
Newsgroup lines:
uk.org.starlink.misc Open forum (discussion related to Astronomy)
*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.
RATIONALE
It has long been custom within uk.* to check for groups that are not
being used and then to remove them. By doing this we keep the number of
dead groups down increasing the chances that someone stumbling across a
group will find it useful.
An alaysis of the posts to uk.org.starlink.misc from 2009-07-01 to
2009-10-31 has shown that there there was 1 post in that period,
details of which are shown below.
Is this group being used?
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:06:29 GMT
CHARTER
No Charter available for this newsgroup.
END CHARTER
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until December 10th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method. Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website). Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.org.starlink.misc
Proponent:
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBSxLWzmOfGXkh8vHZAQInYAP/ayCVOKuFXjzsx8W7wZ4xFm003YlslBYu
rP5wKteRoj2RWSXvrjAECsBCxqnJoY+32oAT+pW7HI2TfcD1hC7D53SCFpJa6IQo
WYDq97plTfXfmfIcMz0nCHakVJvMpzWC6At81sjQxBXVpZxYVhLT4A7dxg0Oe6ft
ZJbOcIrmueo=
=8/T2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wm...
<rfd1-uk.org.starlink.misc-remove-20091129201658$6f...@gradwell.net>
uk.net.news.announce Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
>in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:
>
> delete newsgroup uk.org.starlink.misc
>
>
>Newsgroup lines:
>uk.org.starlink.misc Open forum (discussion related to Astronomy)
>RATIONALE
>
>It has long been custom within uk.* to check for groups that are not
>being used and then to remove them. By doing this we keep the number of
>dead groups down increasing the chances that someone stumbling across a
>group will find it useful.
>
>An alaysis of the posts to uk.org.starlink.misc from 2009-07-01 to
>2009-10-31 has shown that there there was 1 post in that period,
>details of which are shown below.
>
> Is this group being used?
> Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
> Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:06:29 GMT
http://star-www.rl.ac.uk/
===
Welcome to the home page of the
Starlink Project.
The Starlink Project closed in 2005.
===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_Project
===
The Project was formally started in 1980, though the funding had been
agreed, and some work begun, a year earlier. It was closed down when its
funding was withdrawn by PPARC in 2005.
===
'nuff said, I think.
Although the group appears to have been intended for more general
astronomical discussion that now happens elsewhere.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Owen Rees
<usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
<rfd1-uk.org.starlink.misc-remove-20091129201658$6f...@gradwell.net>:
>An alaysis of the posts to uk.org.starlink.misc from 2009-07-01 to
>2009-10-31 has shown that there there was 1 post in that period,
>details of which are shown below.
>
> Is this group being used?
> Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
> Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:06:29 GMT
It is dead. Delete it.
--
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>
Pedt
Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wibbled
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:16:58 +0000, Graham Drabble
><usen...@drabble.me.uk> wrote in
><rfd1-uk.org.starlink.misc-remove-20091129201658$6f...@gradwell.net>:
>
>>An alaysis of the posts to uk.org.starlink.misc from 2009-07-01 to
>>2009-10-31 has shown that there there was 1 post in that period,
>>details of which are shown below.
>>
>> Is this group being used?
>> Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
>> Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:06:29 GMT
>
>It is dead. Delete it.
>
at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never know, I may
hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline with Control.
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Owen Rees
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
<Gj0AZB2f...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:
>Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on the go
>at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never know, I may
>hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline with Control.
I was starting to think of that limit too. I suspect that the deletion
RFDs themselves contain sufficient similar content that they would reach
BI=20 if 20 were posted. A memory is emerging from way back that
suggests that similarity detector tools were already mapping current
group name to a common value in the mid 1990s.
Molly Mockford
>In message <f5sii55jt28t48nnn...@4ax.com>, at 23:44:01 on
>Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wibbled
>>It is dead. Delete it.
>>
>Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on the go
>at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never know, I may
>hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline with Control.
Just to avoid any semblance of similarity: Me Three.
--
Molly - I don't speak for the Committee. I speak for me.
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton
Diamond Ph.D.)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
Graham Drabble
news:a0uii55n6i8e9nl3o...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:58:23 +0000, Pedt <"\"@
> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
> <Gj0AZB2f...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on
>>the go at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never
>>know, I may hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline
>>with Control.
>
> I was starting to think of that limit too. I suspect that the
> deletion RFDs themselves contain sufficient similar content that
> they would reach BI=20 if 20 were posted. A memory is emerging
> from way back that suggests that similarity detector tools were
> already mapping current group name to a common value in the mid
> 1990s.
I think we're OK with the RFDs on BI, with charter, different newsgroup
names and different dates I think they are different enough.
My unofficial "Is this group being used" message however problem does
count as substatially similar.
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
kat
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> said
> At 23:58:23 on Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Pedt <"\"@
> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
> <Gj0AZB2f...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> In message <f5sii55jt28t48nnn...@4ax.com>, at 23:44:01
>> on Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wibbled
>
>>> It is dead. Delete it.
>>>
>> Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on the
>> go at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never know,
>> I may hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline with
>> Control.
>
> Just to avoid any semblance of similarity: Me Three.
And the good old <AOL>
--
kat
>^..^<
Pedt
07:37:40 on Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
wibbled
>On 17 Dec 2009 Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:a0uii55n6i8e9nl3o...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:58:23 +0000, Pedt <"\"@
>> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
>> <Gj0AZB2f...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>>Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on
>>>the go at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never
>>>know, I may hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline
>>>with Control.
>>
>> I was starting to think of that limit too. I suspect that the
>> deletion RFDs themselves contain sufficient similar content that
>> they would reach BI=20 if 20 were posted. A memory is emerging
>> from way back that suggests that similarity detector tools were
>> already mapping current group name to a common value in the mid
>> 1990s.
>
>I think we're OK with the RFDs on BI, with charter, different newsgroup
>names and different dates I think they are different enough.
I'd tend to agree.
The bigger problem possibly with BI is the "<snip> AOL" type replies.
I think you can probably take it as read though that the most
substantive replies are going to be the ones objecting or putting their
own view forward as to why they agree.
>
>My unofficial "Is this group being used" message however problem does
>count as substatially similar.
>
Hadn't considered that but it is possible they've BI'd - rather you than
me to do the calculation *grin* ~ at least you know how many went out
and when.
Clive George
news:wGYdQGHt...@fishcake.eternal-september.org...
> In message <Xns9CE44D982F860gr...@drabble.me.uk>, at
> 07:37:40 on Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
> wibbled
>>On 17 Dec 2009 Owen Rees <or...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:a0uii55n6i8e9nl3o...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:58:23 +0000, Pedt <"\"@
>>> @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in
>>> <Gj0AZB2f...@fishcake.eternal-september.org>:
>>>
>>>>Agreed - and that can be taken for all the rmgroups that are on
>>>>the go at the moment as I don't like repeating myself - you never
>>>>know, I may hit BI=20 :) if Graham has a lot more in the pipeline
>>>>with Control.
>>>
>>> I was starting to think of that limit too. I suspect that the
>>> deletion RFDs themselves contain sufficient similar content that
>>> they would reach BI=20 if 20 were posted. A memory is emerging
>>> from way back that suggests that similarity detector tools were
>>> already mapping current group name to a common value in the mid
>>> 1990s.
>>
>>I think we're OK with the RFDs on BI, with charter, different newsgroup
>>names and different dates I think they are different enough.
>
> I'd tend to agree.
>
> The bigger problem possibly with BI is the "<snip> AOL" type replies.
Could this be an encouragement of a unnc version of "Just a Minute"?
(btw I'll say yes to those deletion proposals I've seen)