Please note that I refuse to post RFD in the moderated newsgroup.

Rayner Lucas <usenet202101@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> wrote:
>board@big-8.org says...

>>REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>unmoderated group comp.lang.go

>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.go

>A summary of discussion up this this point:

>Initial informal proposal:
><t20mgj$tjt$1@dont-email.me>

>Replies in favour: (split between news.groups.proposals and news.groups)
>meff: <t220cs$hfd$1@dont-email.me>
>Spiros Bousbouras: <zsZeFX5hmOfIR8UIh@bongo-ra.co> (not a Go programmer
>but would read it)
>John McCue: <t25gja$154$1@dont-email.me>
>a cat: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>
>John: <86wmzhkk8m.fsf@building-m.net>
>Vasco Costa: <t2sfk2$1tfh$1@gioia.aioe.org>

>Replies against:
>Adam H. Kerman would like to see more existing discussion before
>considering the creation of a new group: <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>

If the topic isn't being discussed on Usenet, starting a new group
doesn't magically get the discussion to take place on Usenet. I am not
aware of where the proponent had been discussing the Go language either.
That was not shared during proposal discussion.

>Steve Bonine makes a similar suggestion: <t251fv$o44$1@dont-email.me>

Hell has surely frozen over.

>First RFD:
><u81jit$5eeu$1@dont-email.me>

>Replies in favour:
>Syber Shock: <d84d5420307f18b128e6956313cbec07$1@sybershock.com>
>a cat: <u841p2$i40b$3@dont-email.me>
>NerdRat Hispagatos: <ua19oe$bmir$1@matrix.hispagatos.org>
>yeti: <87sf96a52m.fsf@tilde.institute> (Also not a Go programmer, but
>planning to read the group at least for a while)
>Xenophon: <ucro7q$3ku21$4@dont-email.me>
>horeszko: <uctbc1$3vc7s$1@dont-email.me>

>Other replies in these threads were neutral or not directly relevant to
>whether to create the group.

RFD is not about who favors starting a newsgroup and who doesn't. It's
not about who would read or post and who won't.

It's about whether the topic is currently being discussed on Usenet and
whether encouraging discussion to take place in the newsgroup for the
narrower topic would enhance discussion.

The usual thought about whether a topic being discussed on Usenet might
be considered to be the basis for a proposed group is whether there is a
minimum of 10 articles a day of discussion on topic. That's actual
discussion, not articles copied from the Web, not complaints about lack
of on topic discussion. The best evidence that discussion is taking
place is people posting root articles that encourage followups and the
thread generally discusses the topic.

Less than this and the proposed group won't have sustainable discussion
in it.

Of course, the Big 8 are a set of newsgroups in administered
hierarchies. The hierarchy administrator can change his view of the set
of groups in the hierarchy by posting an amended checkgroups. The rest
of us literally do not have control of checkgroups.

Am 22.09.2023 um 16:09:18 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

> Please note that I refuse to post RFD in the moderated newsgroup.

Why?

> If the topic isn't being discussed on Usenet, starting a new group
> doesn't magically get the discussion to take place on Usenet. I am not
> aware of where the proponent had been discussing the Go language
> either. That was not shared during proposal discussion.

What about comp.lang.misc?
Did people there discuss Go?

If that group is being created and announced, people interested can
post there (at least some are interested).
Without a group, no discussion can take place.

> RFD is not about who favors starting a newsgroup and who doesn't. It's
> not about who would read or post and who won't.
>
> It's about whether the topic is currently being discussed on Usenet
> and whether encouraging discussion to take place in the newsgroup for
> the narrower topic would enhance discussion.

Creating a group and announcing it elsewhere might attract people.
If the groups isn't being used at all for ~ a year it can be deleted
like other empty groups.

> The usual thought about whether a topic being discussed on Usenet
> might be considered to be the basis for a proposed group is whether
> there is a minimum of 10 articles a day of discussion on topic.

I don't agree with that. There are groups that have only 10 messages
per month, but are interesting.

If we don't create space for new languages, most likely nobody will
discuss them.

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 22.09.2023 um 16:09:18 Uhr schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>Please note that I refuse to post RFD in the moderated newsgroup.

>Why?

I put the comment at the top of the article to point out that I'm not
posting my followup in the newsgroup that the precursor article was
posted to.

Marco, my position on where RFD must be discussed is well known. I am
not going to get into it with you. If you weren't around at the time of
the socmen and pondscum and several other endless RFDs (that essentially
endlessly trolled the Bambies), none of it means anything to you, so
why would you care.

>>If the topic isn't being discussed on Usenet, starting a new group
>>doesn't magically get the discussion to take place on Usenet. I am not
>>aware of where the proponent had been discussing the Go language
>>either. That was not shared during proposal discussion.

>What about comp.lang.misc?
>Did people there discuss Go?

It's not my job to tell me where discussion took place. That's the
proponent's job.

>If that group is being created and announced, people interested can
>post there (at least some are interested).
>Without a group, no discussion can take place.

That's a totally stupid position to take, Marco, and you of all people
damn well know better.

Usenet is a mature medium of communication in which 10s of thousands of
newsgroups have had newgroup messages. There's ALWAYS a place to post on
topic. Given that the Big 8 has *.misc groups all over the place
"courtesy" of tale, yes that absolutely means there is a newsgroup with
broader topics of discussion in which to post.

>>RFD is not about who favors starting a newsgroup and who doesn't. It's
>>not about who would read or post and who won't.

>>It's about whether the topic is currently being discussed on Usenet
>>and whether encouraging discussion to take place in the newsgroup for
>>the narrower topic would enhance discussion.

>Creating a group and announcing it elsewhere might attract people.

I might win the lottery. Just because something isn't impossible doesn't
mean it's not unlikely.

>If the groups isn't being used at all for ~ a year it can be deleted
>like other empty groups.

No, Marco, it doesn't work like that either. It's also a really terrible
idea. Now, a good idea is NOT to start a newsgroup that's unlikely to be
used based on current lack of discussion on Usenet. No newsgroup is ever
needed in the absense of discussion.

The best proponents are those known for starting discussion of a topic.
Those who insist that it's impossible to post lacking a very narrow
group just for the topic they wish to discuss make lousy proponents.

>>The usual thought about whether a topic being discussed on Usenet
>>might be considered to be the basis for a proposed group is whether
>>there is a minimum of 10 articles a day of discussion on topic.

>I don't agree with that.

I really don't care whether you do or not. You don't agree with me and
there's nothing new about that. Persuading you is irrelevant anyway.
A brand new group just won't find an audience with negligible on-topic posts.

>There are groups that have only 10 messages per month, but are interesting.

That's why I argue NOT to rmgroup newsgroups without much of an
audience. But there's a difference between a group that's been around
a long time and a group with a recent newgroup that's struggled to find
its audience.

>If we don't create space for new languages, most likely nobody will
>discuss them.

That's entirely false. People who care to discuss something post; people
who don't care to discuss something don't post. Lack of a very narrow
newsgroup doesn't make posting impossible, let alone difficult in any
way. You yourself pointed out the *.misc group.