And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
aus.net.news:
}snail > wrote:
<snip>
}Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical
}evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care
}of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there
}are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite
}another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month.
And another thing again if there are a couple of hundred posts per month,
of which only five are ostensibly on topic. Would that be a successful
group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm
genuinely interested in your view).
Estimated traffic is important to a proposed group (though perhaps not, to
my mind, as important as the heavily Big 8-influenced FAQ makes it out to
be). However, it's open to aus.admin to accept a RFD without this
information, and to allow it to proceed to a CFV (as has happened)- at
this point, the vote will determine the outcome, and (should it pass)
history will determine the validity. Your argument, whilst relevant and
not answered (to my knowledge, anyway) during the RFD phase, has been
overtaken by events.
}Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting
}wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.*
}and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards
}of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the
}viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.*
}effectively equivalent to the alt.*
I freely admit I don't have an analysis here (and any such would have to
wait until the weekend at the earliest), but I *suspect* the aus.*
hierarchy has a respectable percentage of active groups relative to some
of the Big 8- notably rec.* (counting traffic as the sole indication of
activity), even allowing for the shorter period of existence.
That suggests to me that while the creation process may be flawed, it does
produce the result it was designed for.
}I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.*
}hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on
}this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not
}just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view.
}Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people
}who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want
}now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern?
}Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking...
Would it damage the aus.* hierarchy more than, say, aus.tv.reality? To
attract a "no" vote from me, I'd have to be satisfied that the answer was
that it would- since the process for creating a group in this hierarchy
has been largely followed, I'm not convinced there's a procedural
justification for a no vote.
}FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I
}imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people
}are prevented from having what they want for the eternity.
You may not be aware that this is the second proposal for aus.food to be
presented. The first was on the order of three years ago, IIRC.
}> That doesn't mean newsgroups
}> in aus.* should be created willy nilly, however there has
}> been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems
}> to have a fair bit of support.
}
}What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
}see - and it was totally ignored.
I've also expressed some concerns (largely in aus.net.news), but it's ...
impolite at best to discuss the merits of a proposal during the CFV, so I
leave it to those keen enough to look for them. I fear I've discussed it
too much in this post already.
I don't think I have a dog in this fight, as our American cousins may say,
but I am somewhat curious about the result of the vote.
--
Brett
"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"
|