🚀 go-pugleaf

In Newsgroup balt.config, Jim Jagielski (jim@jaguNET.com) wrote:

>)                        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.


	Actually, since anarchy means without authority, rules
and regulations contradict the concept. You seem to be confusing the 
bureaucracy of socialism with the freedom of anarchism. In an anarchy 
there could be /guidelines/, but no enforcement by any authorities, aside 
from the whining of the anal-retentive if they are not followed. The best 
methods will be found by the people who are free to experiment, and will 
be used by most of the people simply because they choose to do what works 
best, voluntarily.


	By the way, and I'm not saying whether or not you are, but how 
exactly did you become the "authority" in this "anarchy"?

>)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.

	hmm...actually, that's a pretty weak argument. Perhaps it would 
be -nice- if /some/ balt groups were widespread, and I'm sure in those 
cases general consensus will naturally and freely arise without any 
central authority butting in, and a control message will be sent in the 
officially sanctioned way that will create a big-time group. 
But what harm, exactly, is there in balt groups being created by other 
methods, which don't necessarily immediately get turned into 
international groups?


>)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


	Since this document is supposed to be pseudo-official, or at 
least officious, a friendly spelling point: "it's" is a contraction of 
"it" and "is". The posessive pronoun "its" has no apostrophe, any more 
than his or hers has an apostrophe. That little trick should help avoid 
confusion when trying to spell "its" and "it's".


>)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.


	See, these sound like suggestions, not rules. Good suggestions, 
yes, general guidelines which are wise to follow, perhaps. But not rules 
and regulations.


>)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"


	And this is more like a statement of the obvious.


>)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"


	This is where majority rule turns out to be the exact opposite of 
democracy. The very idea of not allowing a newsgroup because people 
specifically don't want it is ludicrous.

	The "viability" of a group has /nothing/, not even slightly, to 
do with who does NOT want a group. It has to do only with whether enough 
people will /post/ in a group that the group's existence will be 
justified. No votes will even reflect, to some percentage, people who 
/will/ post in the group and contribute to its activity level. Say 
someone proposed balt.h.l.menken, or some other controversial figure. 
There are a lot of people who will vote no just because they don't want 
people to be allowed to hear talk of an icon of the "other side", yet if 
the group exists they'll be in there every day, debating whether Menken 
is evil incarnate or not...and discussion about an issue requires both 
sides of the issue, not just a lot of people sitting around saying "Hey, 
Menken was the kewlest!"

>)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>


	Who decides this list? Again; some "anarchy", if it includes 
authority. That is quite a contradiction.



--
Words of the Sentient:

Secrecy is the beginning of Tyranny. --Lazarus Long

        mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org | telnet://umb.upx.net:22

             See also #Heinlein and #Libertarian on the Undernet...