Steve Young wrote:
> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote
> > [added news.groups]
> >
> > "Martin Riddle" <martin_rid@verizon.net wrote:
> >> perhaps sci.energy.homepower
> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
> >> Cheers
> > does make *good* sense
> >
> > kind of a pre-emptive move,... things could get ugly :(
> _______________________
> so as I think about it, why not adopt alt text groups into the BIG 8?
> it becomes the BIG 9! (It used to be the BIG 7 years ago).
> I'd give Adam Kerman and 2 of his designees seats on the board.
> (alt is certainly a qtr of the whole).
> --
> Course I have a vested interest in guaranteed large exposure with an
> alt vanity froup ;)x
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/doc/zen/zen-1.0_15.html
Newsgroup Creation
Everyone has the opportunity to make a Call For Votes on the Usenet and
attempt to create a newsgroup that he/she feels would be of benefit to
the general readership. The rules governing newsgroup creation have
evolved over the years into a generally accepted method. They only govern
the ``world'' groups; they aren't applicable to regional or other
alternative hierarchies.
Discussion
A discussion must first take place to address issues like the naming of
the group, where in the group tree it should go (e.g. rec.sports.koosh vs
rec.games.koosh?), and whether or not it should be created in the first
place. The formal Request For Discussion (RFD) should be posted to
news.announce.newgroups, along with any other groups or mailing lists at
all related to the proposed topic. news.announce.newgroups is moderated.
You should place it first in the Newsgroups: header, so that it will get
mailed to the moderator only. The article won't be immediately posted to
the other newsgroups listed; rather, it will give you the opportunity to
have the moderator correct any inconsistencies or mistakes in your RFD.
He or she will take care of posting it to the newsgroups you indicated.
Also the Followup-To: header will be set so that the actual discussion
takes place only in news.groups. If a user has difficulty posting to a
moderated group, he or she may mail submissions intended for
news.announce.newgroups to the address announce-newgroups@rpi.edu.
The final name and charter of the group, and whether it will be moderated
or unmoderated, will be determined during the discussion period. If it's
to be moderated, the discussion will also decide who the moderator will
be. If there's no general agreement on these points among those in favor
of a new group at the end of 30 days, the discussion will be taken into
mail rather than continued posting to news.groups; that way, the
proponents of the group can iron out their differences and come back with
a proper proposal, and make a new Request For Discussion.
Voting
After the discussion period (which is mandatory), if it's been determined
that a new group really is desired, a name and charter are agreed upon,
and it's been determined whether the group will be moderated (and by
whom), a Call For Votes (CFV) should be posted to
news.announce.newgroups, along with any other groups that the original
Request For Discussion was posted to. The CFV should be posted (or mailed
to the news.announce.newgroups moderator) as soon as possible after the
discussion ends (to keep it fresh in everyone's mind).
The Call for Votes should include clear instructions on how to cast a
vote. It's important that it be clearly explained how to both vote for
and against a group (and be of equivalent difficulty or ease). If it's
easier for you or your administrator, two separate addresses can be used
to mail yes and no votes to, providing that they're on the same machine.
Regardless of the method, everyone must have a very specific idea of how
to get his/her vote counted.
The voting period can last between 21 and 31 days, no matter what the
preliminary results of the vote are. A vote can't be called off simply
because 400 ``no'' votes have come in and only two ``yes'' votes. The
Call for Votes should include the exact date that the voting period will
end---only those votes arriving on the vote-taker's machine before this
date can be counted.
To keep awareness high, the CFV can be repeated during the vote, provided
that it gives the same clear, unbiased instructions for casting a vote as
the original; it also has to be the same proposal as was first posted.
The charter can't change in mid-vote. Also, votes that're posted don't
count---only those that were mailed to the vote-taker can be tallied.
Partial results should never be included; only a statement of the
specific proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a
vote. A mass acknowledgement (``Mass ACK'' or ``Vote ACK'') is permitted;
however, it must be presented in a way that gives no indication of which
way a person voted. One way to avoid this is to create one large list of
everyone who's voted, and sort it in alphabetical order. It should not be
two sorted lists (of the yes and no votes, respectively).
Every vote is autonomous. The votes for or against one group can't be
transferred to another, similar proposal. A vote can only count for the
exact proposal that it was a response to. In particular, a vote for or
against a newsgroup under one name can't be counted as a vote for or
against another group with a different name or charter, a different
moderated/unmoderated status, or, if it's moderated, a different
moderator or set of moderators. Whew!
Finally, the vote has to be explicit; they should be of the form I vote
for the group foo.bar as proposed or I vote against the group foo.bar as
proposed. The wording doesn't have to be exact, your intention just has
to be clear.
The Result of a Vote
At the end of the voting period, the vote-taker has to post (to
news.announce.newgroups) the tally and email addresses of the votes
received. Again, it can also be posted to any of the groups listed in the
original CFV. The tally should make clear which way a person voted, so
the results can be verified if it proves necessary to do so.
After the vote result is posted to news.announce.newgroups, there is a
mandatory five-day waiting period. This affords everyone the opportunity
to correct any errors or inconsistencies in the voter list or the voting
procedure.
Creation of the Group
If, after the waiting period, there are no serious objections that might
invalidate the vote, the vote is put to the ``water test.'' If there were
100 more valid YES/create votes than NO/don't create votes, and at least
two-thirds of the total number of votes are in favor of creation, then a
newgroup control message can be sent out (often by the moderator of
news.announce.newgroups). If the 100-vote margin or the two-thirds
percentage isn't met, the group has failed and can't be created.
If the proposal failed, all is not lost---after a six-month waiting
period (a ``cooling down''), a new Request For Discussion can be posted
to news.groups, and the whole process can start over again. If after a
couple of tries it becomes obvious that the group is not wanted or
needed, the vote-taker should humbly step back and accept the opinion of
the majority. (As life goes, so goes Usenet.)
XML site map
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html
>
> Cheers
>