RFD: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

[James Harris]

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

NEWSGROUPS LINE:
comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers & related hardware and
software.

RATIONALE:

* Discussions on this topic have so far been widely and thinly spread
on Usenet
- e.g. google site:groups.google.com/group/comp "raspberry pi"
* Device has been on sale for over a year (since 29 Feb 2012)
* Circa 1 million units sold so far
- http://www.wired.com/design/2013/01/raspberry-pi-million-boards/
* The maker's web forum, while it is a web site and not Usenet,
currently reports over 299,000 posts and 33,000 threads giving an
indication of the levels of interest in discussion
- http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/
* The Raspberry Pi is complex and used by communities having technical
issues to discuss
* Various third-party add-ons are available
* The device has some distinctive features, e.g.,
* Low cost - base retail prices US$25/35 depending on model
* Header for interfacing with external electronics
* Can generate 1080p30 High Definition video
* For further specs see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi
* People have been using the device for a variety of unusual purposes
- http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=15

All-in-all there seems to be many reasons why a Usenet group would be
well used but to allow the Big 8 Management Board to make an informed
decision if you would read and/or post to the proposed newsgroup
please indicate your interest by replying on this thread. Followups
are set to news.groups.proposals where discussions about the proposal
can be carried out.


CHARTER:

Newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi is for discussion of issues connected
with Raspberry Pi computer systems including set up, programming,
software, operating systems, interfacing, related hardware and
projects.

Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)


PROCEDURE:

For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation

Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate
in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to
groups in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as
well as the best method of making sure that one's comments or
criticisms are heard.

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken
to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as
well.

We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID:

Barney Fife, <4jgdnb60fsmzha7z...@sysmatrix.net>)

Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.

DISTRIBUTION:

This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.python
comp.os.linux.misc


PROPONENT:

James Harris james.harris.1Agmail.com (replace A with @ - but please
discuss the proposal on Usenet!)

CHANGE HISTORY:
2013-03-09 Initial RFD

[DJC]

> All-in-all there seems to be many reasons why a Usenet group would be
> well used but to allow the Big 8 Management Board to make an informed
> decision if you would read and/or post to the proposed newsgroup
> please indicate your interest by replying on this thread. Followups
> are set to news.groups.proposals where discussions about the proposal
> can be carried out.

interested.

[David H Wild]

I would read such a newsgroup.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband
www.davidhwild.me.uk

[David Taylor]

On 09/03/2013 16:21, James Harris wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Supported.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Rob Kelk]

Are you interested enough to post to it?


--
Rob Kelk, co-moderator, rec.arts.anime.info
Personal address, in ROT-13: eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz

[Steve Crow]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2013, James Harris wrote:

> All-in-all there seems to be many reasons why a Usenet group would be
> well used but to allow the Big 8 Management Board to make an informed
> decision if you would read and/or post to the proposed newsgroup
> please indicate your interest by replying on this thread. Followups
> are set to news.groups.proposals where discussions about the proposal
> can be carried out.

As an RPi tinkerer, I'm all for it, and could see myself actively
participating in such a group. Great idea... thanks!

[dvus]

On 3/9/2013 11:21 AM, James Harris wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

[snip]

I would read this group and post if I had questions.

--
dvus

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> writes:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

[...]

Although I never owned one, I'm moderately interested in the
platform, and will most probably read the group and, given that
there be questions not-so-specific to the hardware, hope to
participate in the discussion.

--
FSF associate member #7257

[chrisa...@gmail.com]

As an early adopter of the Pi, I would welcome the creation of a newsgroup for it; I would both read and post to such a group.

Chris Whelan

[Bernard Peek]

On 09/03/13 16:21, James Harris wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

I'm interested and would make use of the group.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[chris]

On 09/03/2013 16:21, James Harris wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

I think this is a great idea.

I have a Pi which is sadly gathering dust. I can't be arsed with web
fora, so a usenet group would be ideal for me to get going on it again.

I would certainly read the group and in all likelihood contribute too.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "James Harris" <james.h...@gmail.com>

>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>

Sounds good



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

James Harris wrote:

> comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers & related hardware and
> software.

I would certainly appreciate a Usenet group for Raspberry Pi related
discussions. If it is created, I expect that I will both read the group
and post to it.

> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> comp.lang.forth
> comp.lang.python
> comp.os.linux.misc

I would suggest that (a reference to) the RFD is posted to
"comp.arch.embedded" and "comp.os.linux.embedded", as I have the
impression that many early users of the Raspberry Pi see it as an
embedded device.

Greetings,

Jacob
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent
life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?

[Andrew]

"James Harris" wrote in message
news:b0663d86-6333-48c8...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

I'm very interested. I would read and post where I could offer help or if I
had questions.

[Ian Clifton]

I would definitely read, and occasionally post—probably more when I
become an RPi owner.
--
Ian ◎

[James Harris]

On Mar 11, 1:20�pm, Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:

...

> I would suggest that (a reference to) the RFD is posted to
> "comp.arch.embedded" and "comp.os.linux.embedded", as I have the
> impression that many early users of the Raspberry Pi see it as an
> embedded device.

Good suggestion. I found only a small mention of the RPi in
comp.os.linux.embedded so did not post there. I have posted to
comp.arch.embedded, though, as there have been plenty of posts about
it.

James

[tin...@isbd.co.uk]

Yes, I'd use a Raspberry Pi group.

--
Chris Green

[Andrew Smallshaw]

On balance I think I'd oppose this specific proposal. I've certainly
no opposition to their being a RasPi (or as we will see, perhaps
a related) group, indeed I would be supportive, but it has to be
the _right_ group and this proposal doesn't seem to be well thought
out.

As far as I can see the rationale is almost a blank sheet that is
more concerned with the virtues of the device rather than showing
motivation for the existence of a newsgroup. Anyone who is going
to post to this new group will already be well familiar. The only
relevant portion are the statistics as to the web forum. The whole
proposal sells the _device_ very effectively but the nuts and bolts
of the _group_ are woefully underdeveloped.

Why is this group needed? What can it do that the forum can't?
If the intent is to centralise discussion (as per the "wide and
thin" argument of the rationale) why create an all encompassing
duplicate of something that already exists? If existing news
discussions are focussed into existing special interest groups is
really that a bad thing? Are Python programmers really interested
in how much current a GPIO pin can source or sink? Might not other
people in the wider electronics community have valuable input even
if not users of the Raspberry Pi specifically? You can make
precisely the same argument for any narrow subset of device usage.

Why the Raspberry Pi specifically? There are any number of similar
devices - Arduino, Beagleboard etc. These specific devices have
been on the market for less than twelve months. They are the
current flavour of the month but what are the long term prospects?
In five years time will it still be the Rapsberry Pi attracting
all the attention or will it (and this group) be forgotten in favour
of the Arduino xxxx, the Beagle yyyy, or the Olimex zzzz? In other
words, should the scope be restricted in this way or broadened out?

Finally the charter conditions as to what would contstitute an
on-topic post seem lazily drafted, almost as an afterthought. With
something such as this with a large number of third-party add-ons
you need to clarify precisely what is meant by spam and advertising.
If I post an ANNOUNCE messgae advsing of a new product directly
related to the Pi is that spam? If I advise I sell an appropriate
solution to a problem a user asks about is that advertsing? What
does "etc" mean? When entire classifications have been missed from
the suggested groups to forward this to (all hardware, embedded
and electronics groups for a hardware device appealing especially
to electronics hobbyists) that again does not strike me as having
had the time and attention a propoer proposal deserves.

Yes, to some extent I am deliberately playing devil's advocate.
However, it most certainyl does seem to be this proposal needs a
thorough redraft and sharpening up. I would hate to see a poorly
thought out, porrly implemented group get established and fall
apart, which then can be pointed to as evidence that a better
proposal should not be advanced in future.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org

[Another Dave]

Web forums are very ungainly. I'd definitely support a newsgroup.

Another Dave

[brendan...@gmail.com]

Count me in! I'm interested!

-Brendan

[Mark]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:17:50 CST, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:

>On 09/03/13 16:21, James Harris wrote:
>>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>>
>> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.
>
>I'm interested and would make use of the group.

+1. I prefer usenet over web forums and find the latter a pain to use
sometimes.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[tjwat...@gmail.com]

I would use and post to the proposed group.

Tim Watts

[mike_...@ntlworld.com]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 4:21:06 PM UTC, James Harris wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>

I'm in favour of the proposal - count me in.

Mike M (RISC OS user)

[Bernard Peek]

On 11/03/13 18:34, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> Why is this group needed? What can it do that the forum can't?

What it can do is to give me help and advice on using my Raspberry Pi.
The web forum can't do that because I have no intention of reading it
unless in dire need and desperation. I rarely get any useful help from
web forums so I've given up on them.



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <slrn3vfskjrt6...@sdf.lonestar.org>,

Andrew Smallshaw <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

> Yes, to some extent I am deliberately playing devil's advocate.
> However, it most certainyl does seem to be this proposal needs a
> thorough redraft and sharpening up. I would hate to see a poorly
> thought out, porrly implemented group get established and fall
> apart, which then can be pointed to as evidence that a better
> proposal should not be advanced in future.

But you definitely have some interesting points. Can we make this
proposal more inclusive of machines of this class, rather than specific
to this manufacturer and model?

--
May joy be yours all the days of your life! - Phina
We are but a moment's sunlight, fading in the grass. - The Youngbloods
Those who eat natural foods die of natural causes. - Kperspective

[David Taylor]

On 11/03/2013 20:40, Howard S Shubs wrote:
[]

> But you definitely have some interesting points. Can we make this
> proposal more inclusive of machines of this class, rather than specific
> to this manufacturer and model?

I think that misses the point, and would dilute the value of the group.
Let those who want an Arduino group propose same. I would probably
support that as well.

[Brian Carroll]

In article
<b0663d86-6333-48c8...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated
> group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation
> of the unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

> NEWSGROUPS LINE: comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers
> & related hardware and software.

[ ... ]

> We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed
> newsgroup to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we
> ask proponents to keep a list of such positive posts with the
> relevant message ID:

> Barney Fife, <4jgdnb60fsmzha7z...@sysmatrix.net>)

> Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may
> constitute good evidence that the group will be well-used if
> it is created.

I would certainly read and occasionally post to such a newsgroup,
particularly to threads relating to use of RISC OS on Raspberry
Pi. I would prefer such a newsgroup to the existing Forum.

> DISTRIBUTION:

> This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups.proposals
> comp.lang.forth
> comp.lang.python
> comp.os.linux.misc

Recommend you post a pointer to this message in
comp.sys.acorn.announce

Brian.

--
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK
______________________________________________________________

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/11/13 3:40 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <slrn3vfskjrt6...@sdf.lonestar.org>,
> Andrew Smallshaw <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, to some extent I am deliberately playing devil's advocate.
>> However, it most certainyl does seem to be this proposal needs a
>> thorough redraft and sharpening up. I would hate to see a poorly
>> thought out, porrly implemented group get established and fall
>> apart, which then can be pointed to as evidence that a better
>> proposal should not be advanced in future.
>
> But you definitely have some interesting points. Can we make this
> proposal more inclusive of machines of this class, rather than specific
> to this manufacturer and model?

This is the traditional "how wide should the scope be" question.

I would like people to be able to find the proposed newsgroup when
they're looking for information on the Raspberry Pi. The only way to
ensure that is to put that into the name of the newsgroup. Putting it
in the newsgroup description would work too, but what do you do when the
next follow-on product appears and people are looking for that?

The alternative of creating a newsgroup for a given product isn't
particularly attractive in the sense that when the product dies, the
newsgroup dies. But we have hundreds of newsgroups where that has
happened, and during the life of that product they served a useful purpose.

My experience with forums is that the ones with a specific focus have
much better discussions. While it may be true that someone from a
related field might have some insight into a question posed about a
related topic, and if they're all in the same newsgroup then you're more
likely to get crossover, in reality the focused discussions just work
better.

So my inclination on this one would be to create as proposed, especially
given the level of positive support that has been shown here (assuming
that they're not all articles forged by the same person).

[Bernard Peek]

On 11/03/13 21:41, Roger Burton West wrote:

> On 2013-03-11, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> But you definitely have some interesting points. Can we make this
>> proposal more inclusive of machines of this class, rather than specific
>> to this manufacturer and model?
>

> It _can_ be done, but _should_ it be? Are the small ARM-based boards
> similar enough to merit a conjoined group? Given that it seems that
> Linux needs to be ported to each board separately, my inclination is
> to say "probably not" -- i.e. users of one board may not get much
> benefit from reading discussions about another. Someone with more
> experience may reasonably disagree.
>

The only similarity between the different boards is the operating-system
and support for that would better be handled in existing newsgroups. It
would seem sensible to use the charter of a new group to point that out.
The charter for a new Pi group should I think emphasise that this group
is not intended to cover generic Linux (or RISCOS or any other OS)
issues. In times past I would have suggested separate groups for the
hardware and software but those days are gone.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Martin Gregorie]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:15:38 -0600, Huge wrote:

> On 2013-03-11, Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:17:50 CST, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09/03/13 16:21, James Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>>> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>>>>
>>>> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>>> unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.
>>>
>>>I'm interested and would make use of the group.
>>
>> +1. I prefer usenet over web forums and find the latter a pain to use
>> sometimes.
>

> What he said.

+1 - what both said.

I would regularly read the group and post when I have anything to
contribute.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <aq6nj7...@mid.individual.net>,

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

> So my inclination on this one would be to create as proposed, especially
> given the level of positive support that has been shown here (assuming
> that they're not all articles forged by the same person).

How about a hierarchy, where "*.raspberry-pi" is one member?

[steven...@uiowa.edu]

Would read and post in the raspberry-pi newsgroup.

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/11/13 9:38 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <aq6nj7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> So my inclination on this one would be to create as proposed, especially
>> given the level of positive support that has been shown here (assuming
>> that they're not all articles forged by the same person).
>
> How about a hierarchy, where "*.raspberry-pi" is one member?

This just might be the place to initiate a new hierarchy.

comp.little-bitty-sys.raspberry-pi?

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Bernard Peek wrote:

> Roger Burton West wrote:

>> Given that it seems that Linux needs to be ported to each board
>> separately, my inclination is to say "probably not" -- i.e. users of
>> one board may not get much benefit from reading discussions about
>> another.

Exactly.

> The only similarity between the different boards is the
> operating-system and support for that would better be handled in
> existing newsgroups.

Challenges related to building/porting operating systems to the device
should still be covered. But otherwise, yes.

> It would seem sensible to use the charter of a new group to point that
> out. The charter for a new Pi group should I think emphasise that this
> group is not intended to cover generic Linux (or RISCOS or any other
> OS) issues.

Good point.

Greetings,

Jacob
--
"Any newsgroup where software developers hang out is
an Emacs newsgroup."

[yello...@gmail.com]

On Monday, March 11, 2013 6:45:02 PM UTC, Howard S Shubs wrote:

<Snipped for brevity>

> Can we make this
>
> proposal more inclusive of machines of this class, rather than specific
>
> to this manufacturer and model?
>
>
>
> --
>
> May joy be yours all the days of your life! - Phina
>
> We are but a moment's sunlight, fading in the grass. - The Youngbloods
>
> Those who eat natural foods die of natural causes. - Kperspective

I would agree to try to make a group that is aimed more at general machines of this class - The Pi is this years favourite, but that won't last forever.

There are /some/ aspects of the Pi that won't be relevant to users of other devices, and vice versa, but a lot of commonality as well, and a more generic group would perhaps have the flexibility to move with the times, and not be candidate for deletion in 5 years time.

One issue with a more generic group is the tendency for flavour-wars to break out - 'xxx is better than yyy' - but I suspect this is likely to be inevitable no matter what the group is called.

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

> How about a hierarchy, where "*.raspberry-pi" is one member?

What is wrong with "comp.sys.*"? It could of course with some reason be
"comp.sys.arm.raspberry-pi" instead of "comp.sys.raspberry-pi".

Greetings,

Jacob
--
"if a person can't communicate,
the very least he can do is to shut up!"

[ewa...@gmail.com]

I too would read a newsgroup on the Raspberry Pi.

Cheers - Ewen

[Gordon Henderson]

In article <b0663d86-6333-48c8...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Interested. Would read & contribute.

--
Gordons Projects in Devon, UK
Projects, Internet Technology, Sysadmin and Training
https://projects.drogon.net/ twitter: @drogon

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

I'm keen; seems like a Good Idea to get new traffic on usenet.

--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

Nano-comput[ers/ing] would seem to be a snappier term,
so

comp.nano.rPi

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/12/13 8:22 AM, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
> Nano-comput[ers/ing] would seem to be a snappier term,
> so
>
> comp.nano.rPi

Please, no. rPi is cryptic. No reason to abbreviate.

As for the issue of doing it in a new hierarchy ... unless people are
likely to actually make use of the fact that it's in a separate
hierarchy, there's little point. I think that 99% of the people who are
looking for a newsgroup on Raspberry Pi will search for "raspberry".

[chris]

On 11/03/2013 18:34, Andrew Smallshaw wrote:
> Yes, to some extent I am deliberately playing devil's advocate.
> However, it most certainyl does seem to be this proposal needs a
> thorough redraft and sharpening up. I would hate to see a poorly
> thought out, porrly implemented group get established and fall
> apart, which then can be pointed to as evidence that a better
> proposal should not be advanced in future.

You do raise a valid issue regarding scope.

However, my feeling would be reduce the scope rather than increase it.
Arduinos, Beagleboards, etc are different devices and I don't think
should be included in this proposal. I quite like the idea of a
comp.sys.arm.raspberry-pi hierarchy, as mentioned elsethread, then other
Arm-based systems could sit along-side.

It isn't clear to me whether this proposal is aimed at software or
hardware level discussions (or both). If I were interested in one side I
wouldn't want to be swamped with loads of threads from the other.

[Rich Jordan]

On Mar 9, 11:21 am, James Harris <james.harri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>                       REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>                 unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

> .....

> PROPONENT:
>
> James Harris james.harris.1Agmail.com (replace A with @ - but please
> discuss the proposal on Usenet!)
>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
> 2013-03-09  Initial RFD

Supported. Reader, unlikely to post.

[gnu...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, March 9, 2013 11:21:06 AM UTC-5, James Harris wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

I would definitely read and likely would post to this group.

Rick

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <8738w1y...@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>,

Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:

> What is wrong with "comp.sys.*"? It could of course with some reason be
> "comp.sys.arm.raspberry-pi" instead of "comp.sys.raspberry-pi".

That's the general idea of what I was thinking, yes.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <aq8m8c...@mid.individual.net>,

There's already a comp.sys.arm. Why not go off of that?

[Rob Kelk]

What does the Retail Price Index have to do with computing?

If one must abbreviate (which is not the case here), please use an
unambiguous abbreviation.

--
Rob Kelk, co-moderator, rec.arts.anime.info
Personal address, in ROT-13: eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/12/13 1:46 PM, chris wrote:
> It isn't clear to me whether this proposal is aimed at software or
> hardware level discussions (or both). If I were interested in one side I
> wouldn't want to be swamped with loads of threads from the other.

Oh, that we should be so lucky as to find enough traffic in the new
newsgroup to swamp anyone.

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/12/13 5:39 PM, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <aq8m8c...@mid.individual.net>,
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/13 8:22 AM, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>>> Nano-comput[ers/ing] would seem to be a snappier term,
>>> so
>>>
>>> comp.nano.rPi
>>
>> Please, no. rPi is cryptic. No reason to abbreviate.
>>
>> As for the issue of doing it in a new hierarchy ... unless people are
>> likely to actually make use of the fact that it's in a separate
>> hierarchy, there's little point. I think that 99% of the people who are
>> looking for a newsgroup on Raspberry Pi will search for "raspberry".
>
> There's already a comp.sys.arm. Why not go off of that?

I am far from an expert here . . . but a web search indicates that ARM
is a specific company/brand. Would people looking for a newsgroup on
Raspberry Pi expect to find it here? Would additional Pi-Like gear fit
here?

I honestly don't think that comp.sys.[something].raspberry-pi or
comp.[something].raspberry-pi is an improvement. Changing the hierarchy
placement does not address the issue that the group will be abandoned at
some point when the Blueberry Cake device becomes the replacement
technology or make it significantly easier to find the newsgroup.
There's something to be said for the KISS principle.

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

yello...@gmail.com writes:

> I would agree to try to make a group that is aimed more at general
> machines of this class

"comp.sys.arm"?

> - The Pi is this years favourite, but that won't last forever.

Neither will the Atari. :-)

I think there are enough users - and enough system specific challenges -
to warrant a group just for the Raspberry Pi.

Greetings,

Jacob
--
"Computer Science is to Science, as Plumbing is to Hydrodynamics"

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On second thought's yes, full word, wherever it ends up in the hierarchy.

[Mark]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 01:53:34 CST, Jacob Sparre Andersen
<spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:

>yello...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> I would agree to try to make a group that is aimed more at general
>> machines of this class
>
>"comp.sys.arm"?
>
>> - The Pi is this years favourite, but that won't last forever.
>
>Neither will the Atari. :-)
>
>I think there are enough users - and enough system specific challenges -
>to warrant a group just for the Raspberry Pi.

The Pi is heavily targeted into schools ATM. My son's school has
bought loads and is using them in ICT and computer clubs. Hopefully
this will mean that they won't just be a short-term fashion. Maybe we
can also attract some youngsters onto usenet?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[chris]

I'm always an optimist :)

[James Harris]

On Mar 11, 9:02�pm, Brian Carroll <bric-nos...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

...

> Recommend you post a pointer to this message in
> comp.sys.acorn.announce

Noted. So far I have posted to seven Usenet groups where the Raspberry
Pi has been discussed before.

2013-03-09 RFD posted to the required two plus
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.python
comp.os.linux.misc

2013-03-11 Info posted to
comp.arch.embedded
uk.comp.homebuilt
uk.comp.os.linux
comp.sys.apple2

I have a list of further groups to post to but, to avoid generating
too much traffic here (or getting accused of spamming by distributing
too widely), was thinking to post to the remaining groups if and when
the new group has been created so as to advertise the new group.

I'll take folks' advice on this though. Have enough been asked to
comment or should comments be invited from other groups?

James

[Steve Bonine]

On 3/13/13 12:59 PM, James Harris wrote:

> I'll take folks' advice on this though. Have enough been asked to
> comment or should comments be invited from other groups?

There have been plenty of comments from people who support the group;
more similar comments are superfluous. I think the only real issue is
the naming of the newsgroup (should it be in a hierarchy, and if so,
which one). Although endless debate on the name of the newsgroup is an
ancient and revered Usenet tradition, my personal suggestion is that
you, as the proponent, make a decision on this and submit a LCC. We
could debate on it forever, but in the end there is no decision that is
absolutely correct or will please everyone.

[James Harris]

On Mar 13, 5:55 am, Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:

...

> > - The Pi is this years favourite, but that won't last forever.
>
> Neither will the Atari. :-)

Good point. I see that the Usenet groups for the Atari computers are
active long after the heyday of the computers themselves. The same
applies to other comp.sys groups such as those for the CBM and
Sinclair machines.

> I think there are enough users - and enough system specific challenges -
> to warrant a group just for the Raspberry Pi.

Agreed. There are plenty of details about the Raspberry Pi to discuss.

James

[James Harris]

On Mar 12, 11:15锟絧m, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

...

> >> As for the issue of doing it in a new hierarchy ... unless people are
> >> likely to actually make use of the fact that it's in a separate

> >> hierarchy, there's little point. 锟絀 think that 99% of the people who are

> >> looking for a newsgroup on Raspberry Pi will search for "raspberry".
>

> > There's already a comp.sys.arm. 锟絎hy not go off of that?

>
> I am far from an expert here . . . but a web search indicates that ARM

> is a specific company/brand. 锟絎ould people looking for a newsgroup on
> Raspberry Pi expect to find it here? 锟絎ould additional Pi-Like gear fit
> here?

Right. The Raspberry Pi uses an Arm CPU but that does not make a good
grouping for it and other Arm-based computers. There are more
distinctive features of the Raspberry Pi due to the non-CPU specifics
of its Broadcom chip but I don't believe that would be a good grouping
either.

Historically, Usenet groups for specific computers have not been
grouped by CPU and I think that the people who set those groups up
made the right choice. The CPU is important but it does not define the
machine.

Some have suggested a category of "small-system" but, again, I don't
believe that would make a good grouping. System size is somewhat
subjective and, over the life of the proposed newsgroup the makers of
big machines may make them smaller. Intel already has something they
call NUC on offer - at 10x10cm or 4x4in.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/motherboards/desktop-motherboards/next-unit-computing-introduction.html

>
> I honestly don't think that comp.sys.[something].raspberry-pi or

> comp.[something].raspberry-pi is an improvement. 锟紺hanging the hierarchy

> placement does not address the issue that the group will be abandoned at
> some point when the Blueberry Cake device becomes the replacement
> technology or make it significantly easier to find the newsgroup.
> There's something to be said for the KISS principle.

Again, yes. However well intentioned I think it would be a mistake to
go against the existing structure of

comp.sys.<systemname>

James

[Theo Markettos]

Roger Burton West <roger+n...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> It _can_ be done, but _should_ it be? Are the small ARM-based boards
> similar enough to merit a conjoined group? Given that it seems that

> Linux needs to be ported to each board separately, my inclination is
> to say "probably not" -- i.e. users of one board may not get much

> benefit from reading discussions about another. Someone with more
> experience may reasonably disagree.

There's an existing group which is roughly targeted at this area, and it's
comp.arch.embedded. Discussion about Raspberry Pi has gone on (at some
length) there, and it's possible to name it comp.arch.embedded.raspberry-pi
But I think this is unwieldy, and the 'embeddedness' of the Pi is only a
facet of its use. So I don't think it would fit comfortably in that
hierarchy.

Theo
(speaking entirely personally)

[James Harris]

On Mar 11, 9:40 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:

...

> The charter for a new Pi group should I think emphasise that this group
> is not intended to cover generic Linux (or RISCOS or any other OS)
> issues.

Maybe. Being a computer the Raspberry Pi overlaps various technologies
such as operating systems and, especially, programming languages of
which there may be many. One would hope that people who have a Linux
question would ask on a Linux group, those who have a Python question
would ask on a Python group etc. It seems impractical to list excluded
topics as there are so many of them but I would welcome suggestions on
changes to the charter.

One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought to
be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and not
specified in the charter?

James

[James Harris]

On Mar 11, 4:35 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

...

> Finally the charter conditions as to what would contstitute an
> on-topic post seem lazily drafted, almost as an afterthought.  With
> something such as this with a large number of third-party add-ons
> you need to clarify precisely what is meant by spam and advertising.
> If I post an ANNOUNCE messgae advsing of a new product directly
> related to the Pi is that spam?  If I advise I sell an appropriate
> solution to a problem a user asks about is that advertsing?  What
> does "etc" mean?  When entire classifications have been missed from
> the suggested groups to forward this to (all hardware, embedded
> and electronics groups for a hardware device appealing especially
> to electronics hobbyists) that again does not strike me as having
> had the time and attention a propoer proposal deserves.

The paragraph of the charter (including the "etc") about spam and
advertising is taken straight from the charter section (currently
shown as 1.5.5) of

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Request_For_Discussion

It would be difficult to make fine distinctions about what exactly
constitutes advertising. I suspect that any such detail would swamp
the description of what the newsgroup *is* about and would be
unenforceable. Maybe a broad outline is best. The text from the above
document seems good to me.

James

[David Taylor]

Agreed - the discussion has gone on long enough. Let's vote on
comp.sys.raspberry-pi!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Mark]

I've seen threads on the Pi on other newsgroups such as
uk.tech.digital-tv and uk.d-i-y. It might be worth posting there.

[Rob Kelk]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:56:12 CST, James Harris
<james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought to
>be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
>posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and not
>specified in the charter?
>
>James

comp.* is an international hierarchy of groups; why limit this group to
a single language?

[Rob Kelk]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:56:57 CST, David Taylor
<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>Agreed - the discussion has gone on long enough. Let's vote on
>comp.sys.raspberry-pi!

It hasn't even been an entire week yet - what's the rush?

[David E. Ross]

While I speak only English, I am not offended by posts in other
languages. When I see such posts, I often see replies in the same
language. Thus, I would not restrict the language.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Anything I post in this newsgroup is my personal
opinion and does not reflect the official position
of the Big8-Usenet Board.

[Brian Carroll]

In article <aqbn3l...@mid.individual.net>, Steve Bonine

I support Steve's comments; there seems to be plenty of support
so the sooner the next step is taken the better. If/when a new
group is ready for use will be time enough to extend the
advertising, such as I previously suggested in reply to James.

Brian.

--
______________________________________________________________

Brian Carroll, Ripon, North Yorkshire, UK
______________________________________________________________

[Bernard Peek]

On 14/03/13 14:56, James Harris wrote:
> One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought to
> be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
> posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and not
> specified in the charter?

Usenet is international. French speakers are perfectly entitled to use
their own language if they wish. It may not get much response but that's
not our problem.

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[mjst...@btinternet.com]

On Saturday, 9 March 2013 16:21:06 UTC, James Harris wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

I would both read and contribute; I much prefer Usenet to web-based forums.
Mike

[Mark]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 11:12:34 CST, "David E. Ross"
<nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On 3/14/13 7:56 AM, James Harris wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 9:40 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> The charter for a new Pi group should I think emphasise that this group
>>> is not intended to cover generic Linux (or RISCOS or any other OS)
>>> issues.
>>
>> Maybe. Being a computer the Raspberry Pi overlaps various technologies
>> such as operating systems and, especially, programming languages of
>> which there may be many. One would hope that people who have a Linux
>> question would ask on a Linux group, those who have a Python question
>> would ask on a Python group etc. It seems impractical to list excluded
>> topics as there are so many of them but I would welcome suggestions on
>> changes to the charter.
>>
>> One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought to
>> be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
>> posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and not
>> specified in the charter?
>>
>> James
>>
>
>While I speak only English, I am not offended by posts in other
>languages. When I see such posts, I often see replies in the same
>language. Thus, I would not restrict the language.

Although, not using English, severly limits the likelyhood of a reply;
especially from me since English is the only language I speak ;-)

[David Bostwick]

David Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in news:khs3lk
$3jj$2...@dont-email.me:

Except that you don't get to vote. The Board votes when they decide it's
time.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> writes:

>>>>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought
>> to be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
>> posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and
>> not specified in the charter?

> comp.* is an international hierarchy of groups; why limit this group
> to a single language?

^[citation needed]? I have always assumed that, unless stated
otherwise, Big 8 newsgroups are for discussions in English.
(And, BTW, I see de.*, no.*, etc., all over the active file.)

(But, indeed, I'd certainly prefer it the inter-lingual way.)

--
FSF associate member #7257

[David Taylor]

On 14/03/2013 19:38, David Bostwick wrote:
[]

>> Agreed - the discussion has gone on long enough. Let's vote on
>> comp.sys.raspberry-pi!
>
> Except that you don't get to vote. The Board votes when they decide it's
> time.

I was simply agreeing with another poster who feels that the discussion
has gone on long enough, with almost 100% in favour. I'm sorry if my
exact choice of words was not 100% correct - I do hope you at least got
my meaning. I hope that the board will decide to put the matter to a
vote before too long.

[Andrew Smallshaw]

I actually had that in mind to some extent in my earlier post,
however the closest existing group to the hardware side is probably
not comp.arch.embedded but comp.arch.hobbyist. I suggest taking
a look at it: it's had a few problems with moderation but is
supposedly back up and running now, but look up its archives: it
never had more than half a dozen messages a month even when working.

This was a successor group to something that had been running for
years in the alt hierarchy, was created back in the days of creation
votes (and I don't think we're up to 100 expressions of support
here yet) and a much broader scope. However, for some reason it
simply didn't take off.

It's very easy to say that you are in support of something and
would use it when it is something you are a fan of. Whether that
translates into actual usage is another matter. It seems that
there is an appetite for a group in the abstract sense but there
isn't consesnus as to what it is about or what would and would not
be relevant.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org

[James Harris]

On Mar 14, 5:40 pm, David Bostwick
<david.bostw...@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote:

...

> > Agreed - the discussion has gone on long enough.  Let's vote on
> > comp.sys.raspberry-pi!
>
> Except that you don't get to vote.  The Board votes when they decide it's
> time.

That's almost right. See what is currently section 4 of

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

It's good to see the eagerness to get started but as Rob pointed out,
it hasn't even been a week since the initial RFD. In fact it is only
just over 5 days! Patience, Grasshopper. :-)

James

[David Taylor]

On 15/03/2013 00:44, James Harris wrote:
[]

> It's good to see the eagerness to get started but as Rob pointed out,
> it hasn't even been a week since the initial RFD. In fact it is only
> just over 5 days! Patience, Grasshopper. :-)
>
> James

Perhaps I'm thinking that the recently created comp.mobile.android
took not a very long time!

[jsl1...@googlemail.com]

Hi!

Am Samstag, 9. März 2013 17:21:06 UTC+1 schrieb James Harris:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

> ...
> comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers & related hardware and
>
> software.
Yes! This would be very appreciated!

[Eamon Skelton]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:02:12 -0600, Brian Carroll wrote:

> In article
> <b0663d86-6333-48c8...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) unmoderated
>> group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>

>> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>> unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

With the huge number of new Raspberry-PI owners, I'm sure there
would be a lot of interest in such a newsgroup.

I would read and possibly post to a Raspberry-PI group.

[Rob Kelk]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:11:45 CST, Ivan Shmakov <onei...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>>> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> writes:
>>>>>> James Harris <james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought
> >> to be in English? I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
> >> posted to other groups. Or should English be taken for granted and
> >> not specified in the charter?
>
> > comp.* is an international hierarchy of groups; why limit this group
> > to a single language?
>
> ^[citation needed]?

http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Big-8_Usenet_hierarchies , first sentence:

"The Big 8 is a collection of international discussion newsgroups
covering a wide range of topics organized in eight hierarchies."

<snip>

[Theo Markettos]

Andrew Smallshaw <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> I actually had that in mind to some extent in my earlier post,
> however the closest existing group to the hardware side is probably
> not comp.arch.embedded but comp.arch.hobbyist. I suggest taking
> a look at it: it's had a few problems with moderation but is
> supposedly back up and running now, but look up its archives: it
> never had more than half a dozen messages a month even when working.

Ahem, I created it. Last time I heard from Jan-Derk Bakker (the moderator)
he was working on fixing the broken moderation system. I have no idea if he
has, but there's been no traffic since (about 2 years ago).

While fixing moderation is a straightforward technical issue (eg just
approving every posting to make it de facto unmoderated) the scene has
changed somewhat. Back in the 1990s we were building computers from 74xx
logic chips or traditional processors (6502, Z80, etc). That faded away
until the recent resurgence. Today the emphasis is slightly different
- architectures used by hobbyists, not designed by hobbyists. Not that
that's a particular problem.

If there's any interest I can do some chasing to make sure the moderation
system is actually functional. But to have a useful group we need people to
post to it.

Just to throw something out there, what about
comp.arch.hobbyist.raspberry-pi
?

> It's very easy to say that you are in support of something and
> would use it when it is something you are a fan of. Whether that
> translates into actual usage is another matter. It seems that
> there is an appetite for a group in the abstract sense but there
> isn't consesnus as to what it is about or what would and would not
> be relevant.

That's true. But I'm not sure it's absolutely vital to nail down the scope
from the beginning, if there's enough justification to talk about
<some things> and the group can work it out over time.

Theo

[Big 8 Management Board]

SECOND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS

This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

NEWSGROUPS LINE:

comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers & related hardware and software

RATIONALE:

* Discussions on this topic have so far been widely and thinly spread on Usenet
- e.g. google site:groups.google.com/group/comp "raspberry pi"
* The RFD (published 9 March 2013) was well supported with positive responses

CHARTER:

Newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi is for discussion of issues connected
with Raspberry Pi computer systems including set up, programming,
software, operating systems, interfacing, related hardware and
projects.

Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)

PROCEDURE:

Please refer to the newsgroup creation policies listed here:

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

All discussion of active proposals should be posted to news.groups.proposals.

To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.

The final comment period lasts for five (5) days from the time that
this RFD is posted.

DISTRIBUTION:

This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.python
comp.os.linux.misc

Pointers will also be posted to:

comp.arch.embedded
uk.comp.homebuilt
uk.comp.os.linux
comp.sys.apple2

PROPONENT:

James Harris james.harris.1Agmail.com (replace A with @)

CHANGE HISTORY:

2013-03-09 Initial RFD
2013-03-16 This LCC

[David Taylor]

I'm happy with that, and would certainly read and likely contribute to
the proposed group.

[James Harris]

On Mar 15, 4:45�pm, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:

...

> > >> One thing I did wonder: should the charter specify that posts ought
> > >> to be in English? �I occasionally see Italian or German and the like
> > >> posted to other groups. �Or should English be taken for granted and
> > >> not specified in the charter?
>
> > > comp.* is an international hierarchy of groups; why limit this group
> > > to a single language?

It's odd to me to see support for this to be a multilingual group. I
much prefer a newsgroup to be language-specific, in this case,
English. While I can grasp some of a few other languages I wouldn't
understand them well and in most cases couldn't tell if the content of
a message was on-topic or abuse or spam!

...

> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Big-8_Usenet_hierarchies, first sentence:

>
> "The Big 8 is a collection of international discussion newsgroups
> covering a wide range of topics organized in eight hierarchies."

LOL - you quoted the first sentence but what about the second
sentence? It says: "Discussion is primarily in English, though there
are exceptions, most notably in the soc.culture.* sub-hierarchy." As
this isn't to be a soc.culture.* group I would query your partial
quoting! :-)

In fact, the specified "international" is fine as far as I am
concerned but that doesn't have to mean multilingual. An English-
language group is ideal for many countries that have English as
primary language or for people who can speak English. I would prefer
Norwegian-speakers or Tagalog speakers or Japanese speakers to have
groups in their own languages, though.

Nevertheless, this is a moot point. As you guys advised against
specifying English I left the charter unchanged. I am just surprised
to find that you guys don't mind.

James

[Martin Gregorie]

I'm happy with this proposal. I'll read the newsgroup and will contribute
if/when I have anything to add.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Rob Kelk]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:59:04 CST, James Harris
<james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 15, 4:45�pm, robk...@deadspam.com (Rob Kelk) wrote:

<snip>

>> http://www.big-8.org/wiki/Big-8_Usenet_hierarchies, first sentence:
>>
>> "The Big 8 is a collection of international discussion newsgroups
>> covering a wide range of topics organized in eight hierarchies."
>
>LOL - you quoted the first sentence but what about the second
>sentence? It says: "Discussion is primarily in English, though there
>are exceptions, most notably in the soc.culture.* sub-hierarchy." As
>this isn't to be a soc.culture.* group I would query your partial
>quoting! :-)

Feel free to querry it. I'll point out, though, (a) "primarily" doesn't
mean "exclusively," and (b) I provided the link so you could see the
entire page.

>In fact, the specified "international" is fine as far as I am
>concerned but that doesn't have to mean multilingual. An English-
>language group is ideal for many countries that have English as
>primary language or for people who can speak English. I would prefer
>Norwegian-speakers or Tagalog speakers or Japanese speakers to have
>groups in their own languages, though.
>
>Nevertheless, this is a moot point. As you guys advised against
>specifying English I left the charter unchanged. I am just surprised
>to find that you guys don't mind.

Most discussion will likely end up in English anyway - it's become the
de facto standard for technical discussion (taking that role away from
German).

[sfx...@gmail.com]

I would read and post in this group.

[Bernard Peek]

On 16/03/13 17:59, James Harris wrote:
> It's odd to me to see support for this to be a multilingual group. I
> much prefer a newsgroup to be language-specific, in this case,
> English. While I can grasp some of a few other languages I wouldn't
> understand them well and in most cases couldn't tell if the content of
> a message was on-topic or abuse or spam!

Strange. I've been using Usenet for over twenty years and as far as I'm
aware I have never encountered a language-specific newsgroup. Can you
give me an example of one?

--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <aqlqnp...@mid.individual.net>, Bernard Peek

<b...@shrdlu.com> writes:

> On 16/03/13 17:59, James Harris wrote:

> > It's odd to me to see support for this to be a multilingual group. I
> > much prefer a newsgroup to be language-specific, in this case,
> > English. While I can grasp some of a few other languages I wouldn't
> > understand them well and in most cases couldn't tell if the content of
> > a message was on-topic or abuse or spam!
>

> Strange. I've been using Usenet for over twenty years and as far as I'm
> aware I have never encountered a language-specific newsgroup. Can you
> give me an example of one?

Certainly, IN PRACTICE most newsgroups have one language. Probably most
or all newsgroups which start with a country code (de for Germany, nl
for Netherlands etc) are in the language of the corresponding country.
There is comp.os.vms, for example, which is in English (in practice
though perhaps not an official requirement) and de.comp.os.vms in
German. Of course, there are country-specific groups with no
counterpart in the more traditional usenet space.

[Jeff Gaines]

On 16/03/2013 in message <aqlqnp...@mid.individual.net> Bernard Peek
wrote:

>Strange. I've been using Usenet for over twenty years and as far as I'm
>aware I have never encountered a language-specific newsgroup. Can you give
>me an example of one?

Wow!

Try de.*, fr.* esp.* etc. etc.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Though no-one can go back and make a new start, everyone can start from
now and make a new ending.

[Bernard Peek]

On 17/03/13 18:28, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 16/03/2013 in message <aqlqnp...@mid.individual.net> Bernard Peek
> wrote:
>
>> Strange. I've been using Usenet for over twenty years and as far as
>> I'm aware I have never encountered a language-specific newsgroup. Can
>> you give me an example of one?
>
> Wow!
>
> Try de.*, fr.* esp.* etc. etc.

Which groups in those hierarchies prohibit posts in English?



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[James Harris]

It depdends on what you are looking for. If you want a group where
only a specific language is allowed you might need a moderated group
but if you just want to discuss a topic in another language check out
the various hierarchies - de.*, es.*, fr.* etc. There are a bunch in
alt.* as well and some proprietary groups where the language appears
later in the path.

I think we are getting a bit off topic especially since the LCC is out
and does not mention language. I'd like to drop out of this subthread
but feel free to email if I've misunderstood what you meant.

James

[Unknown]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 03:02:06 -0400, Big 8 Management Board wrote:

> comp.arch.embedded
> uk.comp.homebuilt
> uk.comp.os.linux
> comp.sys.apple2

Yes! I support this, and look forward.
Unfortunately USEnet has been swamped by the FB/twitter-kiddies.
And even the presumably 'minimalist' rPi has got an absurd http 'social
like' info system, designed for high-band-width-users mostly.
Where's the info re.
= pinout of fakeUSB power connector ?
= hardware & software of other existing I/O ?
= how realistic is it to expect to be able to compile/port exisiting X86
apps ?

Thanks for taking the initiative to establish: comp.sys.raspberry-pi

== Chris Glur.

[Rob Kelk]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:12:56 CST, Unknown <d...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 03:02:06 -0400, Big 8 Management Board wrote:
>
>> comp.arch.embedded
>> uk.comp.homebuilt
>> uk.comp.os.linux
>> comp.sys.apple2
>
>Yes! I support this, and look forward.

Would you use the group if it's created, or do you just think it's a
good idea to have the group in existence?

(Many people thought it was a good idea to keep rec.arts.anime.info
alive - enough that I and another person volunteered to take up the
moderation duties of the group. Now that it's running again, only one
person actually *uses* the group. Yes, I should do something about that,
but for now, this serves as an object lesson for group proposals...)

>Unfortunately USEnet has been swamped by the FB/twitter-kiddies.

Welcome to the endless September. This state of affairs has existed
since long before Friendster/MySpace/FaceBook/Twitter were imagined, let
alone created. All we can do is live with it.

<snip>

--
Rob Kelk, co-moderator, rec.arts.anime.info
Personal address, in ROT-13: eboxryx -ng- tznvy -qbg- pbz

[Big 8 Management Board]

RESULT
unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi

The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2013-03-16 initiated a five-day
period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8
Management Board has decided by consensus to create unmoderated

newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

NEWSGROUPS LINE:

comp.sys.raspberry-pi Raspberry Pi computers & related hardware and software

CHARTER:

Newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi is for discussion of issues connected
with Raspberry Pi computer systems including set up, programming,
software, operating systems, interfacing, related hardware and
projects.

Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)

DISTRIBUTION:

This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:

news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.forth
comp.lang.python
comp.os.linux.misc

PROPONENT:

James Harris james.harris.1Agmail.com (replace A with @)

CHANGE HISTORY:

2013-03-09 Initial RFD

2013-03-16 2nd RFD/LCC
2013-03-30 RESULT

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 30/03/13 07:46, Big 8 Management Board wrote:
Following this comment period, the Big-8
> Management Board has decided by consensus to create unmoderated
> newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

should be a bundle of fun..may have to lurk in that one.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[The Doctor]

In article <kj650o$mgq$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Nice to see this is still alive!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 amnd 53 on Atheism
I am a New World Order Enemy - I am an enemy of totalitarians and dictators.

[James Harris (es)]

"The Doctor" <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:kj6ouk$lu6$1...@gallifrey.nk.ca...

> In article <kj650o$mgq$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Big 8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>> RESULT
>> unmoderated group comp.sys.raspberry-pi
>>
>>The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2013-03-16 initiated a five-day
>>period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8
>>Management Board has decided by consensus to create unmoderated
>>newsgroup comp.sys.raspberry-pi.

...

>>CHANGE HISTORY:
>>
>>2013-03-09 Initial RFD
>>2013-03-16 2nd RFD/LCC
>>2013-03-30 RESULT
>>
>
> Nice to see this is still alive!

It can take 14 days from the LCC to the announcement of the result. See the
timetable at

http://big-8.org/w/index.php/Final_RFD_/_Last_Call_for_Comments

It took the full 14 days. (The decision was apparently made by consensus
which is normally shorter. But either way the result is the same.)

As an aside the links to the big-8.org web site seem to have changed. Old
ones used earlier in this thread no longer work. For some reason the web
site changed. I've no idea why or whether it is temporary or permanent.

All we can do now is wait for the newsgroup to be taken up by Usenet
providers. Anyone know how long that normally takes?

James