Brett Mount > wrote:

> And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Victor Sack with some words for
> aus.net.news:
>
> }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.

This would only be relevant in an already existing newsgroup.

> Would that be a successful
> group, in your opinion? (That's a serious question, by the way- I'm
> genuinely interested in your view).

I don't know if I want to generalise like that. I can, however, point
to the many of the soc.culture.* newsgroups that are exactly like your
description. I would say they are dead, for all practical purposes.

On the other hand, maybe you mean some existing newsgroup where all of
those off-topic posts are on the subject of Australian food. ;-)

> 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.

Not at all. The discussion goes on and can change people opinions and
votes. For example, I have not voted yet and, if some honest stats that
show the groups viability are posted, I shall abstain or vote YES. It
is not as though these stats must be included in the charter or even the
rationale. They may just be a part of the dicussion.

BTW, something that Nick once posted about multiple voting attempts made
me think that only the first vote is counted and the others ignored. If
this is indeed so, it is rather unfortunate. In my opinion, only the
last vote should be counted in such a case, not the first one. This is
how it is done in the Big-8 hierarchies, FWIW. People do sometimes
change their opinion in the course of a discussion.

> 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.

Has the process always been flawed, as you put it, at least as far as
not presenting an estimate of future traffic on the newsgroup is
concerned? Or is this a recent development?

> 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.

The form has been followed, for nowhere there is a requirement to
present any statistical evidence. The spirit was ignored, though, for
the form without substance is, of course, empty and pointless. The
damage will be done if future proposals are treated this way also. It
is, in my opinion, a seriously flawed proposal - gimme a better one,
NOW! :-) I think aus.* deserves better.

I therefore reluctantly call upon those who are still reading this
thread and agree with my reasoning to vote NO and hope for a better
proposal a few months from now. Please look up the CFV at
<http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/msg/cec6752ce58417b6> and
follow the instructions. Make sure your address is unmunged.

(I don't think my call will make any difference at all - people are just
not really interested in the subject, at least on rec.food.cooking, and
I'm not about to start campaigning. So, it is just a matter of
principle...)

> 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,

Why, pray tell? I'm truly puzzled. As long as there is an opportunity
to vote, discussion should be allowed to go on. Or is this a peculiar
aus.* custom?

Victor