🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca) writes:
> In article <4rbedq$jir@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Patrick Coghlan <bn207@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> 
>>PROCEDURE:
>>
>>This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase
>>of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
>>should be raised and resolved.  The discussion period will continue
>>for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
>>proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
>>Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
>>warrants it.  Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>>
>>All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
>>
>>This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
>>guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
>>to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal".  Please refer to these
>>documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
>>questions about the process.
> 
> Pardon me, but the full RFD/CFV/How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup"
> process does _not_ apply to can.* newsgroups.  You need to read the
> can.* FAQ in can.config first.  news.* has nothing to do with can.* -
> can.* group discussions do not belong at all in news.groups.
> 
> You should be glad it doesn't, because the chances of getting enough
> votes to pass a CFV for a can.* group are slim-to-none.

The reference to news.groups was an editing oversight on my part.

Is there another template for non-"big seven" RFDs?


--

-Pat  

bn207@freenet.carleton.ca