Is this group being used?
Graham Drabble
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 wil find it useful.
This group appears to have been quiet for a while and has received 0
posts in the last 5 months. Is there still enough interest to keep the
group viable?
Details of the formal removal process can be found at
http://www.usenet.org.uk
--
Graham Drabble
http://www.drabble.me.uk/
Denis McMahon
> This group appears to have been quiet for a while and has received 0
> posts in the last 5 months. Is there still enough interest to keep the
> group viable?
Unfortunately it seems not, and as the instigator of the group even I
would have to admit that it's probably dead now.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Percy Picacity
news:T-adnfhVVNCE-bPW...@giganews.com:
Which is a shame since parliament are currently debating a law to allow
the government to cut individuals off from the internet by
administrative action with no judicial process. But people seem to
prefer uk.politics.censorship. Hard to disagree about the moribundity
of this group, though it logically *should* exist!
--
Percy Picacity
Charles Lindsey
>Hi,
>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 wil find it useful.
>This group appears to have been quiet for a while and has received 0
>posts in the last 5 months. Is there still enough interest to keep the
>group viable?
I think this is really a "safety valve" sort of group, which is going to
see little traffic until some Jobsworth somewhere tries to start
regulating something. And then it could all take off until the issue gets
resolved.
As another poster has pointed out, there is indeed an issue about to boil
over regarding forcing ISPs to drop customers who break copyright. The
current draft bill is so badly worded that it is clearly not going to
survive in that form. But sooner or letter a possibly viable Bill will
appear, and then things could indeed get interesting.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Clive D. W. Feather
>I think this is really a "safety valve" sort of group, which is going to
>see little traffic until some Jobsworth somewhere tries to start
>regulating something. And then it could all take off until the issue gets
>resolved.
>
>As another poster has pointed out, there is indeed an issue about to boil
>over regarding forcing ISPs to drop customers who break copyright. The
>current draft bill is so badly worded that it is clearly not going to
>survive in that form. But sooner or letter a possibly viable Bill will
>appear, and then things could indeed get interesting.
This is roughly what was said when I tried to Dr.Death this group many
years ago.
Several significant and appropriate topics (e.g. "three strikes") have
come and gone since. Relevant postings to this group? None.
It's dead. It's not even pining for the fjords any more. Kill it.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Graham Drabble
news:Kv05r...@clerew.man.ac.uk:
> I think this is really a "safety valve" sort of group, which is
> going to see little traffic until some Jobsworth somewhere tries
> to start regulating something. And then it could all take off
> until the issue gets resolved.
That could be argued for many groups. If unr was removed then all the
topics it covers would, once again, become on topic for uk.net (which
is hardly over-busy at the moment).
Wm...
<Xns9CE8D88F783D1gr...@drabble.me.uk> uk.net.regulation
Graham Drabble <usen...@drabble.me.uk>
As someone who has believed for a while that this group should exist on
principle I accept that the group is not being used.
Graham's suggestion that if rm'd the discussion should fall up to uk.net
makes sense to me.
I'd be happy not to object if a pointer was made on
http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html#uk.net
to say discussion now takes place in uk.net
Does anyone think I'd need to RFD that or would it be sensible for
Charles to just make a change to an html doc?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Charles Lindsey
>Graham's suggestion that if rm'd the discussion should fall up to uk.net
>makes sense to me.
>I'd be happy not to object if a pointer was made on
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html#uk.net
>to say discussion now takes place in uk.net
I don't see how that would help. Why should anyone looking for a place to
discuss regulation think of looking there? He would be more likely to go
and look on the uk.net group itself.
My opinion is that we should leave this group be. It is clear that quite a
few people are still subscribed to it, and are ready to respond as soon as
a relevant topic turns up.
Percy Picacity
> In <ALRm7OaIC3NLFwOR@[127.0.0.1]> "Wm..."
> <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>
>>Graham's suggestion that if rm'd the discussion should fall up to
>>uk.net makes sense to me.
>
>>I'd be happy not to object if a pointer was made on
>>http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html#uk.net
>>to say discussion now takes place in uk.net
>
> I don't see how that would help. Why should anyone looking for a
> place to discuss regulation think of looking there? He would be
> more likely to go and look on the uk.net group itself.
>
> My opinion is that we should leave this group be. It is clear that
> quite a few people are still subscribed to it, and are ready to
> respond as soon as a relevant topic turns up.
>
I thought this group was a very good idea when formed, and opposed
its removal last time this was suggested. However, despite several
relevant issues being widely discussed elsewhere (RIPA, IWC mission
creep, Phorm, Cleanfeed, data retention for instance), and attempts
to raise them here by lone voices (I did this once I think), there
has never been any kind of discussion in this group involving more
than about 3 people, and no posts at all for years on end.
Regrettably it seems that no-one actually uses this group, perhaps
partly because they like to discuss issues in fora they are used to.
It is sad, but how many years of disuse does it take to conclude
that the group is not going to be used?
--
Percy Picacity
Dave J.
in uk.net.regulation, 'Wm...' wrote:
>>
>>> I think this is really a "safety valve" sort of group, which is
>>> going to see little traffic until some Jobsworth somewhere tries
>>> to start regulating something. And then it could all take off
>>> until the issue gets resolved.
>>
>>That could be argued for many groups. If unr was removed then all the
>>topics it covers would, once again, become on topic for uk.net (which
>>is hardly over-busy at the moment).
>
>As someone who has believed for a while that this group should exist on
>principle I accept that the group is not being used.
>
>Graham's suggestion that if rm'd the discussion should fall up to uk.net
>makes sense to me.
>
>I'd be happy not to object if a pointer was made on
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/newsgroups.html#uk.net
>to say discussion now takes place in uk.net
>
>Does anyone think I'd need to RFD that or would it be sensible for
>Charles to just make a change to an html doc?
I think it would be sensible for us to start discussing some relevant
stuff. It takes no more than three posters.
Dave J.