🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam Levin <alevin@ari.net> writes:

>On 25 May 1996, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>> At the very least, you should have gotten a flavor that newsgroups should
>> only be created when there's a need for them. The voting process is required
>> to ensure that the rest of the UseNet groups don't fall into the sillyness
>> that's abundantly clear in the alt.* hierarchy.

>Well, here's what I've been saying. In my search, I found no such document
>that stated that voting was a required part of the process of creating a
>new group in the balt hierarchy. Yes, I am aware that for "rec" it was
>required, but in my search and subsequent request for information (that
>went unanswered) I found nothing that stated voting was required for a
>regional group.

The reason for the balt.config group, as you know, is a location to propose
and discuss the creation of new balt.* newsgroups. Although balt.* is not
as strict as the big 7, it's not as free and easy as alt.*

Although there is NO official policy that says that balt.* requires the
exact same procedure as rec.*, for example, it certainly doesn't mean
that a proposal that generates, as far as I know, absolutely NO response
at all means it's OK to create the new group. At the very least, the
documentation should have left you with the distinct taste that creation
of new newsgroups should not be done willy-nilly, which it appears was the
case with balt.music. Certainly you _must_ have known that balt.* was
"closer" to rec.* than alt.*... The Usenet docs might it pretty well
clear that except for _truly local_ (ie. on one server _only_), alt.* is
a very special case. In any case, what I disagreed with was that you
had a proposal that generated NO response at all and you took that as an
OK to create the group. That is NOT what I would have expected of someone
who had done research on how to create new groups... Even alt.* assumes
_some_ kind of interest...

Nonetheless, here is a rough draft of "FAQ" on How To Create Balt.*
NewsGroups. I openly encourage any and all comments. It's a combination
of traditional balt.* management, with a smattering of other regional
ideas and some hints from the news.announce.newgroups moderator to
ensure universal distribution of any newly created balt.*.

For your holiday reading enjoyment:

============================================================================

                        How to create balt.* newsgroups
                       ---------------------------------

Introduction:
-------------
As in any well-run anarchy, there must be at least some rules and regulations
about how to do things. With Usenet (also known as NetNews), this applies as
well, especially when creating new newsgroups are concerned.

The rules for creation of a 'alt.*' newsgroup are quite fast and loose.
Creation of new newgroups under the "big 7" (comp, misc, news, rec, sci,
soc and talk) is much more controlled, requiring debates, discussion and
voting. The standards for other groups are more murky, but they all require
at least some semblance of discussion and need. No newsgroups, other than
true local ones, can be created with the wild abandon of the alt.* hierarchy
though. This document will discuss and note the procedures for creating and
adding new newsgroups to the balt.* hierarchy.

Why This Document?:
-------------------
Even though the balt.* hierarchy is "meant" for the Baltimore, MD area, there
can be, and are, times when you want a balt.* newgroup available throughout
the entire Usenet universe. Since Usenet is a distributed medium, all Usenet
sites must agree to create and carry a group for it to have wide range and
availability. Having a few local ISPs add the groups locally just won't cut
it. At the very least, a formal Newgroup Control message must be submitted.

Another very good reason for this document is that many people had different
ideas in what was involved in this procedure. Some assumed that balt.* was
similar to alt.* and new groups could be created at a whim. Other assumed that
a full-blown proposal was required. It's not, but it is a good idea and you
won't get slammed for "following the book." Instead, the creation of new
balt.* groups is a bit more flexible than with the big 7, but it still requires
a demonstration of need and a vote.

Do We Need This New Newsgroup?:
-------------------------------
This is the underlaying foundation of new group creation. If focused discussion
in one newsgroup generates "excessive" traffic in that Usenet group, then
it's a prime candidate for it's own Usenet group. That's an extremely
wishy-washy definition, and that can't be helped. There are no cut-and-
dried rules on what "excessive" means. Let's look at some examples:

   1) For some reason, most of the discussions in balt.general
      lately have been discussing the Inner Harbor. All kinds of
      things like what to see, where to eat, is it on the slide,
      stuff like that.

      At first blush, this looks like a good time to propose
      balt.inner-harbor.

   2) In the last month or so, there have been 2 requests on where some
      good bike-trails are in Baltimore. No real discussions have taken
      place, just a few answers given and that's that.

      Doesn't look like we need a balt.bike-trails in this case.

The real question is "Is a seperate newsgroup actually needed?" Some people
may say Yes, others No. At this point, we get into the next phase.

The Proposal:
-------------
At this point, someone decides that they think a new group is needed. They
should then post a RFD (Request For Discussion) in balt.config. Make sure
that the Subject line includes both "RFD" and the proposed new group; for
example "RFD: balt.traffic-jams" is a good subject, "Whatcha think about this"
is not. Why? So people will notice it. The words aren't all that important,
but you want to make it VERY obvious that you are proposing anew group
here.

In the posting, the "proposer" states why the feel a new newsgroup is
required. Any kind of supporting information is acceptable, like maybe
"out of the 100 articles, 75 have been about Gun Laws." If you know of
others who agree, it's perfectly acceptable to mention them in the proposal
as well. The whole idea is to "convince" the Usenet administrators that
a new group is required.

The Discussion:
---------------
After the article has been posted, the discussion in the Baltimore-Internet
community should start. As with the proposal, all discussion should be done
in the balt.config newsgroup. If after 2 weeks or so no one at all has
any interest at all, resubmit your proposal, with the Subject line reflecting
that it's another RFD by using something like "RFD #2: balt.theblock"

If about a week passes after RFD #2 and still no one has bothered to discuss
the matter, you should consider it closed. No interest means no interest. In
all fairness, however, this puts you, the proposer, in an awkward spot.
Maybe people were being lazy... maybe they were too busy... maybe they don't
like you. Whatever. No interest means no interest and you should not go to
the Voting stage. If you want to try additional RFDs, that's dandy. But
don't assume that "silence gives consent."

On the other hand, this does NOT mean people should just ignore RFDs that
they don't agree with. Someone went out of their way to propose a new group.
If you don't think one is required, at the very least you owe it to that
person, and to the Balt-'Net community at large, to at least post an
article in balt.config that you don't think a new group is warrented and
that these are the reasons why. Let's avoid misunderstanding. The name of
the game is communication.

Voting:
-------
After a healthy discussion, it may be obvious what the outcome is. If
balt.config is filled with "Yeah! Good idea"-type articles, then a Vote
may not be needed. Conversely, an obvious outpouring of "No way"-type
postings indicate the same. Still, it is up to the Proposer to go by his/her
gut feelings... If it's obvious that it's "thumbs down" you may want to avoid
a Vote and let it die. If it's obvious that it's a resounding "thumbs up"
you may want to post something like "Sounds like it's Go for balt.shoestores!"
If, however, you post something like that and even _one_ person demands a
Vote, you are bound to hold on. You can't weasle out of it. (Oh yeah, and
no one should demand a Vote just be a pain in the arse... It's not nice to
fool with Mother Nature).

Voting is laborious. You need to post an article in balt.config calling
for a "CFV (Call For Votes)" for your new group. Voting should last between
1 to 2 weeks, with the deadline clearly noted in the CFV article. Votes
should be sent to the Proposer and to another party from the "other side"
(this can be agreed upon by the two parties personally if desired). 

After the deadline, both "sides" should tabulate their results (votes and
Email addresses) and post them in balt.config. Minor differences will be
ignored in the results.

If there are 2/3s of the Votes are Yes and the total number of votes taken
exceed 50, then the group Shall Be Created. If less that 50 votes are taken
or less that 2/3s are Yes, then the group Shall Not Be Created. If Not Created,
another attempt may be made in 30 days. If sneaky-tricks are suspected,
a neutral 3rd party should be used.

The New Group:
--------------
As a newly approved balt.* newsgroup, now the actual creation starts. There
are x people allowed to actually, physically create new balt.* newsgroups.
They are:

    <the list goes here>

One of these individuals will create the actual Newgroup Control message for
the group. The group's charter, if appropriate, will also be added. The
control message will be posted, with a copy posted to news.announce.newgroups
and the news.announce.newgroups moderator, for completeness.
-- 
Jim Jagielski  << jim@jaguNET.com >>   |      "That's a Smith & Wesson,
  **  jaguNET Access Services  **      |       and you've had your six" 
      Email: info@jaguNET.com          |             - James Bond
++    http://www.jaguNET.com/         +++      Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157       ++