🚀 go-pugleaf

Abiogenesis Software <ladyhawk@abiogenesis.com> wrote:
> I see no problem with putting forth a tentative proposal for the
> structure of a site.  That doesn't mean we can't start with
> comp.sys.be or comp.sys.be.advocacy and go from there.

It is premature to try and imagine every newsgroup that
might be needed and have some grand plan to follow.  Let's
create the newsgroups that work well in other comp.sys.*
heirarchies, and then open up debates about new groups
after we see the actual traffic.

> Right now I see 1/3 of the Amiga postings, 2/3 of the NeXT postings
> and most of the PowerPC postings centered around the BeBox.  This
> is indication enough that it needs a separate site, so it doesn't
> further and unduly interfere with the other newsgroups.

And almost all of those postings are advocacy postings, so you've
only justified the creation of a single group.

> Your opinion is welcome, however, although my personal feeling
> is that it's easier to make the distinctions early on than having
> to wade through a dozen topics all lumped into advocacy.

Your opinion is welcome too, however, you have the minor hurdle
of getting newsgroups voted on before they will be created.  If
you want to go with your personal feelings, instead of with
common usenet practices, you're likely to end up with zero
newsgroups.  That won't do anyone any good.

> Since my original post, I've considered that networking and
> telecommunications are not as separate as they used to be and
> could be collapsed into one group.

Any debate of this sort, at this stage, just underscores how
silly it is to pretend to plan every detail of every possible
newsgroup this far in advance.  One could equally ask what
basis there would be for having both a "multimedia" newsgroup,
and two other newsgroups for "sound" and "video".  The answer
is "It's Your Opinion", based on zero facts.  That answer won't
fly very far when it comes to voting.

> With this much interest and offers of assistance, I don't think
> it's premature to discuss the structure of an Internet newsgroup.

You are *not* talking about "an" Internet newsgroup, you are talking
about fourteen or fifteen of them.  I get the feeling you are more
used to CompuServe forums, given the way you are discussing this.

I think that creating a very short list of be-related newsgroups
is a good thing to do.  I don't think there is any reason to create
as many as you're lining up here.

Most of this discussion should really be going on in news.groups,
however.  That's where the keys to newsgroup creation are.  If
you've followed that in the past, however, you'd realize that
there's pretty much no way that you're going to get over ten
newsgroups created for something that's this new.

---
Garance Alistair Drosehn     =     gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
ITS Systems Programmer            (handles NeXT-type mail)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute;           Troy NY    USA