Brett Mount > wrote:

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

You wouldn't agree now?

> 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.

Ah, it would still be quite a bit different from those soc.culture
newsgroups, I imagine, for many, if not all, of the off-topic postings
would be presumably coming from people also posting on topic in the
newsgroup. In soc.culture ones it is mostly crossposted trolling and
flame-wars that have nothing at all to do with most of the affected
newsgroups and with people posting there on topic.

> }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.

As far as I'm concerend, they can address my concerns any time, right
now, for example. I don't think they lost any chances until the voting
is over. At least this ought to be so, logically.

> 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 don't know what the original intent was, but at least for the past
decade it has been both, in practice. A lot of people over the years
have been pointing out that the vote may be changed by voting again. I
think it would be a good idea to adopt the same practice in aus.*

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

It is no different in the Big-8 now, either. I think no more than about
a dozen new groups are created each year now, just a fraction of the
multitude created in '96 or '97, for example.

> 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"."

Ah, I confess that I overlooked this point.

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

I hope he will answer. Only the last phrase, perhaps with the addition
of a similar one about not advising people only how to vote "NO", makes
sense to me.

Victor