G'day Brick,
In article >, "Brick"
> wrote:
>On 30-Aug-2005, (Phred) wrote:
>
>> >>| Creation of Unmoderated newsgroup aus.food
>> >
>> >>Wait a minute, there is a basic problem as the proposal is stated.
>> >>-- the charter above overlaps existing international food newsgroup
>> >>rec.food.cooking (RFC).
>> >
>> >aus.* is a regional hierarchy and as such its charters need to
>> >be consistent only within the hierarchy. Overlap between charters
>> >of international groups or other regional hierarchies is irrelevant.
>> >
>> >You're saying something like "you can't have an aus.computers.linux
>> >because there are already comp.os.linux groups". That's not the way
>> >regional hierarchies work.
>>
>> Well, that seems clear enough. :-)
>>
>> But continuing... What happens to regional proposals, such as this
>> one, if the good denizens of the parallel international group decide
>> they don't like the "competition" and vote against it in numbers?
>> Do you only count "local" votes, or are votes from anywhere valid?
>
>The administration of usenet and specifically the inclusion or exclusion
>of new groups is not contingent upon a general vote. That is, there is
>no one to tally votes and thus authorize or deny a new group. The
As Nick pointed out to you in aus.net.news (the group you cut out here
in a fit of mindlessness) that is not the way it works for the aus.*
regional hierarchy. (In fact I'm not even sure that is the way it's
*supposed* to work for the Big Eight either -- but it's 15 years since
I took much interest in those international CFVs, so things may have
changed behind my back.
In aus.*, once the votes are tallied (and they are) and if the new
group "passes" then Nick, acting as ausadmin, sends out the 'newgroup'
message and USENET admins here in Oz automatically execute it. They
won't respond to other sources of 'newgroup' (or 'rmgroup' come to
that).
>purpose of the RFD is to provide the identification of a proposed new
>group and to identify the pros and cons for such a group. The ensuing
>discussion will allow the OP to further refine his/her newgroup
Yep.
>proposal pursuant to posting a formal 'newgroup' message. Providing
Actually, before the formal Call For Votes.
>the 'newgroup' message meets various usenet criteria, it will likely
>not be 'remgrouped' by one or more of the existing usenet administration
>contributors. Who are the administration contributors? This is usenet
>therefore there isn't a formally organized administration. Nevertheless,
>it is pretty well managed by a number of IM professionals, typically
>managers of major information systems such as universities.
>
>In actual practice, anyone can post a 'newgroup' message, just as
>anyone can post a 'remgroup' message. Generally speaking a 'newgroup'
>will stand unless or until it is challenged with a 'remgroup' msg. Any
>valid 'remgoup' will include the reason for posting it. In which case the
>OP may correct or otherwise overcome the reason for rejection and
>repost a 'newgroup' msg.
Though true in theory, it's not really done in practice
AFAIK (but see
above disclaimer). The main reason for the alt.* hierarchy is (was?)
the difficulty of getting new Big Eight groups approved though the
formal RFD/CFV process.
>Case in point; we just read here that the posted objection to aus.food
>stating it's comparison to rec.food.cooking is invalid due to aus.food
>and rec.food being like apples and oranges. This the reason and
>validation for the RFD. One does not have to be an expert to initiate
>a new group. Plenty of experts will help if the request is valid. Beware
>that the OP will have to present convincing evidence that the new
>group will attract enough traffic to make it realistic. (That's one of
>the requirments for a 'newgroup' msg.) Ultimately, individual ISP's
>may carry or ignore group(s) at will.
Yep. And that would still apply here, but the "automatic" approval of
new aus.* groups coming from the correct source is very widely
implemented (though I hesitate to say "universally" -- there could be
one of those white crows out there. ;-).
Cheers, Phred.
--
LID