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:
}> }
}> }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?

On balance, no, though I think there's a distinction to be drawn below.

}> 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.

The ones I was thinking about are indeed more filled with cliquey
behaviour by the regulars, which may occasionally even overlap the nominal
topic of the group. After some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion
that this may not always be a Bad Thing.

Usenet vandalism such as you describe is a horse of a different colour.

}> 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.

Logically, yes, but to do so would technically violate the procedures for
group creation- I don't know, of course, to what extent the proponent
feels bound by this.

}> 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.*

Certainly, I can think of no reason why it is the way it is beyond
administrative convenience. Given the (now slightly) lower thresholds for
success in aus.* compared to the Big 8, I wonder if there's enough votes
to make it worth the bother?

}> 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.

Well, there's not so much stuff to discuss these days, I guess. <G>

Aus.* probably tends to something like one group per quarter, where
news.groups probably sees that couple of weeks (it has been quieter
recently, of course, save for discussions of voting procedure). It's the
difference between a regional hierarchy and a global one.

Usenet as a whole is probably losing ground in terms of popularity to web
boards and blogs, though the extent to which that's happening; whether
it's a Good Thing, and What Should Be Done About It all seem to be open
questions at the moment.

<snip: now re the reasons for not campaigning during a CFV>

}> 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.

I suspect organised Vote No campaigns were viewed as being a lesser risk,
though the history of some of the more political groups in aus.* may make
that assumption seem odd.

--
Brett

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