[posting from aus.net.news]

Victor Sack > wrote:
> I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
> estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
> traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian

ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
probably in the pre-RFD period.

> reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
> been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*

I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
should come up.

> particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may
> be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very
> slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the

If it's "very slightly" then it doesn't sound like that big an issue.
Though that remains a valid point.

> it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
> one would be perfectly adequate.

Now that's just insulting. I've been active in both regional
and international newsgroups over the years though little of
either these days. Sometimes both on the same topic, simply
because of the different flavour of a local group vs an
international perspective. I used to hang out in news.groups
several years ago and aus.net.news for many years, and a.n.n
is much, more relaxed than n.g but then the number of posts
is orders of magnitude lower. 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.
--
snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.

snail > wrote:

> Victor Sack > wrote:
> > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
> > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
> > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
>
> ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
> probably in the pre-RFD period.

*Please* post the evidence!

> > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
> > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
>
> I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
> should come up.

*Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands.

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.

> > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
> > one would be perfectly adequate.
>
> Now that's just insulting.

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 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...

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.

> 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.

Victor

Victor Sack > wrote:
> snail > wrote:
>> Victor Sack > wrote:
>> > I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
>> > estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
>> > traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
>> ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
>> probably in the pre-RFD period.
> *Please* post the evidence!

How about you google aus.net.news yourself ?

>> > reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
>> > been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
>> I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
>> should come up.
> *Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands.

I just asked you Anyway I just had a brief look through
and found plenty of discussion, checked a few posts at random,
but didn't find stats. Using keywords like postings, statistics,
and a couple of others.

I'm posting here as a denizen of aus.net.news. I'm vaguely interested
in whether this group gets up or not, as previous attempts over the
years have failed. This time round there seems to be a lot more
folk interested; certainly there's been a lot more folk posting this
time round which is at least indicative that the group might be used.

> Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical
> evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care

There were previous attempts to create groups in 2000 and 2001 I think.
Let's see, how about the old CFV results:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...4deab752abe0de

previous dicussion of older RFDs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=aus.net.news+gourmand

oooh, forgot about my attempt in 2003 which is referred to in
discussion back in May:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.n...bf0c6d73013ff6

Crikey, I forgot my own proposal, I knew I was having a bad week
but this is silly.

> 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.

That I agree with you on.

>> > it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
>> > one would be perfectly adequate.
>> Now that's just insulting.
> 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.*

*grin* Either way it was a bit of a wank.

> and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards

Well that's one of the differences, another is that alt is a
global hyraky ( ) where as aus.*, uk.* are country based;
or melb.* syd.* which are city based. Another example is film.
There's plenty of good international discussion groups for film
but aus.film is needed simply because of differing release
schedules and a place for locals to hang.

> 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.*

Bullshit. Honest Even if that one standard were lacking, it's
still not even close to reducing aus.* to the standards of alt.*

> 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.

Nope, my main interest these days is in local groups. I choose
not to take a big 8 view. r.f.c seems a big, happy group but
for me the effect on that group seems minor and not especially
relevant. There'll still be some Oz posters there, and there
may well be room for a local group too.

> 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?

No now about it, food proposals in aus.* have come up several
times before and failed and may well fail again, or succeed.

> Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking...

Your concern is fair enough for you; I don't see why "one has to
take a larger view". That's your stance not mine.

> 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.

Well, it's been about 5 years since it was first proposed and it
still hasn't got up. Maybe folk will have to wait an eternity

>> 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.

Go back a couple of months...probably April/May and there's been
a bunch of food related postings in a.n.n in that time too.
--
snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.

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"

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

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"

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

> 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.

you've already made your mind up. Why should we try to change someone who is
not willing to listen.

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"

(Victor Sack) writes:

>Brett Mount > wrote:

>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.*

At this point it's mostly a software issue. The voting instructions
are simply appended to a text file as they are received; to allow later
votes to override an earlier vote would require rewriting the file
to delete the older vote and then append the newer vote. As it is,
when a vote comes in, if there's already a vote there for that email
address then the code just throws the new vote away and sends an error
to the email address.

If the voter wants to change their vote they can send me an email.

>> "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.

Andrew, not 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.

Usually the proposer of a vote is interested in getting the vote passed.
These are the people most likely to "advertise" a way to vote YES only.
We haven't had any situation yet where somebody who is not the proponent
takes it upon themselves to promote failing a group vote.

I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the
code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO,
so I expect the issue will disappear.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.