🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4i8065$fhd@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Railinks <railinks@cpnet.net> wrote:
>Article: <4i4kpq$3la@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
>Poster: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis):

>|->I would suggest that you writeup a proposed charter for a group named
>|->"can.org.cusen", and cross-post it to:

>|->	can.config
>|->	can.general
>|->	other relevant group (eg: sci.environment)

>|->with "Followup-To: can.config" in the headers.  The proposal should include
>|->a request that those interested post comments to can.config.

>|->The idea is to:

>|->	a) define what the group will be for
>|->	b) reach the people that would potentially be interested in the
>|->	   group
>|->	c) get those people to post messages in support of the group.

>|->From the nature of the response, we can then see whether it's worth
>|->creating the group.

>Truly amazing!  >>>EVERYONE ELSE<<< that ever wanted to start a
>can.* newsgroup gets told to seek support by forming a mailing list
>first, and come back another time when they can demonstrate that
>there is masive support already for the newsgroup before the
>"hundreds of news admins" would even think about it.

This is just plain false.  The only time I remember it being suggested
that a group form a mailing list first was the can.community.asian proposal
because none of the people interested seemed to be able to get to Usenet -
so creating a group would have been pointless.

And I don't think it was me who suggested the mailing list then either.
I rarely ever do that.

>Could Chris Lewis be softening in his old age? Or do some groups
>get a pass in the process?

What I proposed above has always been the process I suggest.  It is also
the process shown in Dawn Whiteside's FAQ.  If you want to pick a fight,
at least get your facts straight first. 
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_