🚀 go-pugleaf

Leonard Pulver wrote:

> Sylvain:  Last year, when can.rec.gardening was
> proposed, I expressed amazement and chagrin at the slam
> bang  speed with which it was done.

(I'm more than a little surprised that you're addressing me
specifically, but I think it's pretty clear that your message is really
for the group in general...)

> Then the product of that process appeared...... zero
> propagation.  It would therefore appear that the
> process needs changing.

I don't know about that.  For the first while, there was clearly activity
on the group, from various regions across the country, so there most
definitely was *some* propagation.  I'm very surprised to hear that
Sympatico is apparently not carrying this group, (I was fairly certain
I'd seen it on their server in Montreal, but that would be at least about
a year ago), but then it may not have made it onto ISC's master list of
groups, (which Sympatico seems to use as a reference).

My point being that although we're currently looking at a rather inactive
group, to state that propagation is "zero" is off the mark.  Nothing we do
here can ensure that all (or even any) Canadian news admins will carry any
group, (in fact, I'm more than a little surprised to see such low activity
from fellow news admins in *this* group, but that may be a sign that
I'm not the only one who's usually busy doing non-news related tasks).

> With that in view, I am going to post here, for
> discussion "Newsgroup Creation in the us.* Hierarchy" .
>  It is not perfect, but it works, and seems superior to
> the Big 8 - 100 votes system.  

I agree it's worth discussing, although I'm going to enter the
discussion from a standpoint of "can.* has a less formal group creation
procedure than either the Big-8 or us.*, and what's appropriate in those
hierarchies is not necessarily going to make it any more likely that
more news admins will add can.* groups to their active files.  In fact,
my gut instinct is that the mostly informal approach we take now is
potentially most effective for can.*, since it has the news admins
themselves working with group proponents to ensure that groups being
proposed and created will remain useful in the long term."

I probably haven't been a participant in can.config for as long as most
who post here, but I'm sure you'll notice that the general approach to
group proposals has suggested a willingness (in most cases, at least) to
have the groups created, though we've at times needed to help the group
proponents come up with a proposal for a group which would stand up over
time (and which hopefully fits in well with existing sub-hierarchies
when appropriate).

My strongest reservation about adopting a procedure such as is described
in the us.* hierarchy is that it suggests (?) that an individual (or
small group) actively "maintains" the us.* hierarchy.  Can.* has been
(so far) managed much less formally than that, in that we've tried to
work by general consensus (as indicated by discussion in this
newsgroup).

A few people have devoted a fair amount of their time to helping with
this, and have gained the respect and acceptance of their peers, such
that if there _were_ a "maintainer" for the hierarchy, at least for most
people who participate in can.config, it's hard to imagine that there
would be loud objections.  Of course would any (or all) of these people
be willing to take on a more "formal" role of maintaining the hierarchy?

> If you think this proposal worth considering I will
> edit the text to make it Canadian.

What I'd really like to know is how it would help ensure that more
Canadian news admins agree to (automatically?) carry can.* groups.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille                              syl@alcor.concordia.ca
 
Systems analyst / Newsmaster                      Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology        Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------