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

}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.

I'd suggest that it may be relevant if that's how the proposed group is
likely to end up.

}> 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.

And the alt.* heirachy is notorious for them. A few years ago, I'd have
agreed with your assessment.

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

Possibly- I tend not to frequent groups at the chattier end of the
spectrum (I think I have still have Trillian installed somewhere if I want
that).

I believe the proponent has suggested there will be a reasonable overlap
of posters with aus.family, which seems to tend in that direction from a
quick glance at it. I don't think it's a stretch to indicate that
aus.food won't be as focussed as, say, sci.math.num-analysis.

}> 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.

Well, I'm not sure I agree. During the RFD phase several calls were
certainly made for a justification for aus.food, and were largely
unanswered. Prospective voters will no doubt have noted that omission, be
it deliberate or accidental, and will vote accordingly. The proponents
have had and lost the chance to address your concerns, and must now face
the consequences.

}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.

Counting the first vote may simplify the logistics, I guess- I agree that
the last vote would seem to reflect the most recent (and most
considered?) opinion held by the voter, but in the absence of discussion
on the group's merits I wouldn't expect there to be all that many changes.
I believe the Big 8 rule is more about dissuading multiple votes than
determining a voter's true intent.

}> 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?

I don't believe aus.family or aus.arts.anime were so
supported, to mention the last couple of groups I recall off the
top of my head. Aus.tv.reality, a few years ago, was (though not in a
particularly formal way, to my mind).

The aus.* heirachy isn't really all that busy in terms of new groups
getting created all the time.

}> 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.

It's certainly a supportable argument- as I mentioned in an earlier post,
I'm curious to know how many others share your views to the extent of
voting.

}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...)

Everything on Usenet is a matter of principle. <G>

}> 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?

It's in Point 5 of the aus.admin FAQ at
<http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq>

"It's requested that people refrain from discussing the newsgroup after
the CFV has been posted. The newsgroup should have been discussed in
the RFD period. You should also not promote your proposal during the
voting period, nor advise people only how to vote "YES"."

I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better
directed to Mr Andrews.

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"