rek2 hispagatos wrote in news.groups.proposals:
> Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> What does everyone think? I was reading:
> https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
>
> Happy Hacking.

The suggestion in the document you cite is "1. (optional) The proponent
may start an informal discussion in news.groups.proposals, news.groups,
and/or in related groups about the proposed group." Given the low
participation in news.groups.proposals, I think you will get more
comments here in news.groups. Even better would be a discussion in
"related groups" that would demonstrate that there are actually people
who are interested in the topic and would participate in a Usenet newsgroup.

Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>rek2 hispagatos wrote in news.groups.proposals:

>>Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
>>modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
>>everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
>>active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
>>love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
>>GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.

>>What does everyone think? I was reading:
>>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
>>and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.

>>Happy Hacking.

>The suggestion in the document you cite is "1. (optional) The proponent
>may start an informal discussion in news.groups.proposals, news.groups,
>and/or in related groups about the proposed group." Given the low
>participation in news.groups.proposals, I think you will get more
>comments here in news.groups. Even better would be a discussion in
>"related groups" that would demonstrate that there are actually people
>who are interested in the topic and would participate in a Usenet newsgroup.

Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
people participate in discussing the topic.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:15:58 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
> >rek2 hispagatos wrote in news.groups.proposals:
>
> >>Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
> >>modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
> >>everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
> >>active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
> >>love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
> >>GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
>
> >>What does everyone think? I was reading:
> >>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
> >>and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
>
> >>Happy Hacking.
>
> >The suggestion in the document you cite is "1. (optional) The proponent
> >may start an informal discussion in news.groups.proposals, news.groups,
> >and/or in related groups about the proposed group." Given the low
> >participation in news.groups.proposals, I think you will get more
> >comments here in news.groups. Even better would be a discussion in
> >"related groups" that would demonstrate that there are actually people
> >who are interested in the topic and would participate in a Usenet newsgroup.

What would be a related newsgroup ? comp.lang.misc perhaps ? But my experience
is that there people tend to discuss custom made languages or general issues
of language design rather than specific languages which do not have a dedicated
comp.lang.* group.

> Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
> discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
> people participate in discussing the topic.

I have been reading comp* groups for many years. I don't remember Go ever
being discussed. Perhaps there has been some passing reference which I've
forgotten about. But the lack of discussion could simply be because there's
no group for it.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:15:58 -0000 (UTC)
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <spb@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>rek2 hispagatos wrote in news.groups.proposals:

>>>>Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
>>>>modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
>>>>everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
>>>>active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
>>>>love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
>>>>GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.

>>>>What does everyone think? I was reading:
>>>>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
>>>>and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
>>>>Happy Hacking.

>>>The suggestion in the document you cite is "1. (optional) The proponent
>>>may start an informal discussion in news.groups.proposals, news.groups,
>>>and/or in related groups about the proposed group." Given the low
>>>participation in news.groups.proposals, I think you will get more
>>>comments here in news.groups. Even better would be a discussion in
>>>"related groups" that would demonstrate that there are actually people
>>>who are interested in the topic and would participate in a Usenet newsgroup.

>What would be a related newsgroup ? comp.lang.misc perhaps ? But my
>experience is that there people tend to discuss custom made languages
>or general issues of language design rather than specific languages
>which do not have a dedicated comp.lang.* group.

>>Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
>>discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
>>people participate in discussing the topic.

>I have been reading comp* groups for many years. I don't remember Go ever
>being discussed. Perhaps there has been some passing reference which I've
>forgotten about. But the lack of discussion could simply be because there's
>no group for it.

If you don't see discussion on Usenet that you want to read then it's
your responsibility to start it.

Usenet dies because each and every regular reader waits for someone else
to start discussion.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:41:11 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:15:58 -0000 (UTC)
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
> >>discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
> >>people participate in discussing the topic.
>
> >I have been reading comp* groups for many years. I don't remember Go ever
> >being discussed. Perhaps there has been some passing reference which I've
> >forgotten about. But the lack of discussion could simply be because there's
> >no group for it.
>
> If you don't see discussion on Usenet that you want to read then it's
> your responsibility to start it.

(generic) You want to discuss it somewhere where it's topical. If not ,
chances are you'll get flamed , you'll annoy people and you won't achieve
anything. If (non generic) you have any suggestions for a group where a
discussion of Go might not be too much off-topic , go ahead and share them.
Mine would be comp.programming .It would disagree with the charter of the
group (discussion of algorithms) but for a long time the group has mostly
been taken over by trolls (especially one who uses it more or less as his
personal blog) so discussion about a programming language would be an
improvement.

> Usenet dies because each and every regular reader waits for someone else
> to start discussion.

You are being melodramatic. Usenet is a niche interest and likely to remain
so but I don't anticipate it dying for decades.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

[...]

> Usenet dies because each and every regular reader
> waits for someone else to start discussion.

True.

--
^Ï^ Slava Ukraini

My pet rock Gordon just is.

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 16:41:11 -0000 (UTC)
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:15:58 -0000 (UTC)
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
>>>>discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
>>>>people participate in discussing the topic.

>>>I have been reading comp* groups for many years. I don't remember Go ever
>>>being discussed. Perhaps there has been some passing reference which I've
>>>forgotten about. But the lack of discussion could simply be because there's
>>>no group for it.

>>If you don't see discussion on Usenet that you want to read then it's
>>your responsibility to start it.

>(generic) You want to discuss it somewhere where it's topical.

There is no "where". Either the topic is discussed on Usenet or it's
not.

You are well aware that Usenet has *.misc groups. tale newgroups lots of
these. "There is no place to post" is absurd, given 10s of thousands
of failed newsgroups on Usenet. Any conceivable topic is on topic in
some existing newsgroup on Usenet.

>If not , chances are you'll get flamed , you'll annoy people and you
>won't achieve anything.

Now you are trolling, and/or making excuses about why you can't be
bothered to start discussion that you want to read, forever waiting for
someone else to startit. You post like a serious person, say something
worthwhile, then you won't get flamed by other people who have
worthwhile and interesting things to say.

If you do get flamed, you grow a thicker skin and ignore it.

The rest deleted unread because you are not a serious people with
anything worthwhile to say. If you were you'd be known for posting
on the topic you claim to be interested in.

Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

> Usenet is a niche interest and likely to remain
> so but I don't anticipate it dying for decades.

Yes, that is exactly the issue. In order to be useful, a discussion
must have participants. If there is no one on Usenet who wants to
discuss GO, it's pointless to create a newsgroup for it. There are not
huge numbers of people who are interested in discussing GO, and there
are not huge numbers of people who are currently using Usenet, so at
this point we have exactly one potential participant in a GO newsgroup.

On 2022-03-31, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Even better would be the proponent making himself known for actually
> discussing the topic in an existing newsgroup in threads in which other
> people participate in discussing the topic.

I am very sympathetic to this argument and when the OP originally
posted in another group about this I gave the same response. I do
pause because most of comp.lang.misc tends to argue hobby languages
and from my general experience on the internet these folks are
actively disinterested in (sometimes even hostile toward) Go.

I do however think that, no matter how this proposal goes, we should
start threads in Usenet groups about Go because I'd be happy to
participate in them. I write lots of Go (recently even NNTP-related Go
code) and would be happy to discuss with other Go enthusiasts.

OP feel free to start Go discussions. I'd be more than happy to join
in when time permits.

On 01/04/2022, meff <email@example.com> wrote:
> I do however think that, no matter how this proposal goes, we should
> start threads in Usenet groups about Go because I'd be happy to
> participate in them. I write lots of Go (recently even NNTP-related Go
> code) and would be happy to discuss with other Go enthusiasts.
>
> OP feel free to start Go discussions. I'd be more than happy to join
> in when time permits.

As a Go programmer I would also be more than happy to engage in Go
discussions. Perhaps the lack of such discussions is related to the
existence of an official Google Group about the language (go-nuts).
However as an NNTP lover, it would be great to have a newsgroup.

I'm taking the chance to ask here whether you or the OP have already
started any discussion somewhere else. Otherwise I'll start one myself.

--
Vasco Costa

AKA gluon. Enthusiastic about computers, motorsports, science,
technology, travelling and TV series. Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

Gemini: gemini://gluonspace.com/

On 2022-04-09, Vasco Costa <vasco.costa@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I'm taking the chance to ask here whether you or the OP have already
> started any discussion somewhere else. Otherwise I'll start one myself.

I have not. Feel free to make one, cross-post here, and I'll join in.

meff <email@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-04-09, Vasco Costa <vasco.costa@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>I'm taking the chance to ask here whether you or the OP have already
>>started any discussion somewhere else. Otherwise I'll start one myself.

>I have not. Feel free to make one, cross-post here, and I'll join in.

Hold it. Do not crosspost GO programming language discussion to
news.group. Post it in an appropriate miscellaneous programming language
discussion group tagged [GO] to make it more prominent. Try to get
discussion going first, then decide if there is enough discussion to
warrant a specific group.

DO NOT have such discussion here in news.groups, which is for configging
discussion only and not actual discussion topics.

On 10/04/2022, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Hold it. Do not crosspost GO programming language discussion to
> news.group. Post it in an appropriate miscellaneous programming language
> discussion group tagged [GO] to make it more prominent. Try to get
> discussion going first, then decide if there is enough discussion to
> warrant a specific group.

Yes, that's exactly what I intended to do. Thanks for making it clear
and for the extra tips on how to tackle it.

--
Vasco Costa

AKA gluon. Enthusiastic about computers, motorsports, science,
technology, travelling and TV series. Yes I'm a bit of a geek.

Gemini: gemini://gluonspace.com/

On 2022-04-10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> DO NOT have such discussion here in news.groups, which is for configging
> discussion only and not actual discussion topics.

I don't intend to have a discussion here but if I'm not aware which
group the discussion is being created in, how would I ever find the
discussion? I had only intended the cross-post to be a way to
"originate" the discussion but if you have a more appropriate Usenet
way of things I'm interested.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 04:04:02 GMT
meff <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-04-10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > DO NOT have such discussion here in news.groups, which is for configging
> > discussion only and not actual discussion topics.
>
> I don't intend to have a discussion here but if I'm not aware which
> group the discussion is being created in, how would I ever find the
> discussion? I had only intended the cross-post to be a way to
> "originate" the discussion but if you have a more appropriate Usenet
> way of things I'm interested.

comp.lang.misc which has already been mentioned in this thread.

meff <email@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-04-10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>DO NOT have such discussion here in news.groups, which is for configging
>>discussion only and not actual discussion topics.

>I don't intend to have a discussion here but if I'm not aware which
>group the discussion is being created in, how would I ever find the
>discussion? I had only intended the cross-post to be a way to
>"originate" the discussion but if you have a more appropriate Usenet
>way of things I'm interested.

There is a miscellaneous group for every single topic.

The OP was already advised, and agreed to, discuss the topic in
comp.lang.misc elsewhere in this thread.