REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.lang.newlisp
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.newlisp.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
For your newsgroups file:
comp.lang.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
RATIONALE: comp.lang.newlisp
I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss topics and
issues related to the newLISP programming language.
newLISP (see http://www.newlisp.org/) is a Lisp-1 dialect of the Lisp
programming language. It currently has a base of at least 346
registered users (as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM (Tokyo
time), and is a general-purpose scripting language. It comes with a
fast, light, multi-tab DrScheme-style IDE (see
http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=IDE) equipped with syntax
highlighting and a built-in REPL.
There is a "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/) with a total of 14448 articles by
346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM
(Tokyo time). However, the forum requires use of a browser, and many
old-time USENET users object to a Web-based interface for programming
language discussion. Also, many of the users on this forum are of a
very elementary level and very application-oriented, and I would like
to promote more theoretical discussion of semantical issues related to
the programming language newLISP. In addition, I wish to encourage
posts by more sophisticated users, such as those of the academic
community in programming language theory.
Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
Common Lisp-oriented focus. Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the
Scheme programming language, of which newLISP is not a dialect.
Comp.lang.functional covers functional programming dialects of all
sorts, but much of the discussion there would be confusing to new
users of newLISP, who are not aware of such differences as a Lisp-1
vs. a Lisp-2 dialect, or of a statically typed programming language
vs. a dynamically typed programming language, and so forth.
If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
issues related to the newLISP programming language, but excluding
announcements. Users of comp.lang.newlisp may also be interested in
having a separate group, comp.lang.newslisp.announce, to discuss
related announcements. Both groups should, IMO, be included in any
votes taken.
CHARTER:
comp.lang.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
related to the newLISP programming language.
Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate
in the relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to
groups in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as
well as the best method of making sure that one's comments or
criticisms are heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken
to ensure that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as
well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID (e.g.,
Barney Fife, <································@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.lang.lisp
comp.lang.scheme
comp.lang.functional
PROPONENT:
Benjamin L. Russell ············@Yahoo.com
CHANGE HISTORY:
{2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
{2009-03-06 1st RFD}
{2009-03-10 2nd RFD}
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.newlisp
>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.newlisp.
>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>For your newsgroups file:
>comp.lang.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
>RATIONALE: comp.lang.newlisp
>I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss topics and
>issues related to the newLISP programming language.
Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
I thought this issue was already decided.
Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> wrote:
> Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
> that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
>
> I thought this issue was already decided.
Can you provide a pointer? I found a discussion about creating a group
for Common Lisp where the consensus was "no", but nothing about newLISP.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
>>that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
>>I thought this issue was already decided.
>Can you provide a pointer? I found a discussion about creating a group
>for Common Lisp where the consensus was "no", but nothing about newLISP.
Pardon me. That's what I was thinking of.
Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide a pointer? I found a discussion about creating a group
>> for Common Lisp where the consensus was "no", but nothing about newLISP.
>
> Pardon me. That's what I was thinking of.
Ah, okay. However, when looking for what you described, I found that there
is very little newLISP discussion at all, which is not encouraging...
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Member of the Big-8 Management Board
AHK> Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
AHK> that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
err, no. we did not want to go away from here, but if trolls and idiots(*)
are going to go away, i think everyone will cheer this.
*: i'm joking, of course.
partially.
"lisp" with "ORO" memory management is a joke.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:44:06 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<···@chinet.com> wrote:
>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> unmoderated group comp.lang.newlisp
>
>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.newlisp.
>
>>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>>For your newsgroups file:
>
>>comp.lang.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
>
>>RATIONALE: comp.lang.newlisp
>
>>I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss topics and
>>issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>
>Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
>that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
>
>I thought this issue was already decided.
My apologies; I was not aware of that discussion from three weeks ago,
and merely posted this RFD here because the members in charge of
new.groups.proposals and news.announce.newgroups required me to do so
as part of the proposal process.
May I ask either which post (a specific title and date would be
helpful) in this newsgroup contained that decision, or what the reason
was behind not wanting this topic split out?
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <···@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Benjamin L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group comp.lang.newlisp
>>>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>>unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.newlisp.
>>>NEWSGROUPS LINE:
>>>For your newsgroups file:
>>>comp.lang.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
>>>RATIONALE: comp.lang.newlisp
>>>I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss topics and
>>>issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>>Didn't we hear from the users of comp.lang.lisp just three weeks ago
>>that the group DID NOT want this topic split out?
>>I thought this issue was already decided.
>My apologies; I was not aware of that discussion from three weeks ago,
>and merely posted this RFD here because the members in charge of
>new.groups.proposals and news.announce.newgroups required me to do so
>as part of the proposal process.
>May I ask either which post (a specific title and date would be
>helpful) in this newsgroup contained that decision, or what the reason
>was behind not wanting this topic split out?
Jeremy reminds me that I was thinking about common LISP, so the issue of
splitting out this topic wasn't the discussion I was thinking about from
a few weeks ago.
May I implore you to suspend this RFD pending a full discussion among
comp.lang.lisp regulars about whether there's enough discussion on
Usenet of this language to split it out of LISP discussion?
Google Groups advanced search finds negligible discussion of newLISP on
Usenet, not that the search engine has been working adequately for over
a year.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:44:50 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<···@chinet.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>Jeremy reminds me that I was thinking about common LISP, so the issue of
>splitting out this topic wasn't the discussion I was thinking about from
>a few weeks ago.
>
>May I implore you to suspend this RFD pending a full discussion among
>comp.lang.lisp regulars about whether there's enough discussion on
>Usenet of this language to split it out of LISP discussion?
No problem. The RFD is already awaiting the results of the
discussion, so there is no need specifically to "suspend" the RFD,
because this discussion is already being reflected on news.groups.
>Google Groups advanced search finds negligible discussion of newLISP on
>Usenet, not that the search engine has been working adequately for over
>a year.
Check out the "newLISP fan club" (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/). There are a total of 14448
articles by 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at
11:52 AM (local time here). That would seem to be quite a bit of
discussion.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <···@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Jeremy reminds me that I was thinking about common LISP, so the issue of
>>splitting out this topic wasn't the discussion I was thinking about from
>>a few weeks ago.
>>May I implore you to suspend this RFD pending a full discussion among
>>comp.lang.lisp regulars about whether there's enough discussion on
>>Usenet of this language to split it out of LISP discussion?
>No problem. The RFD is already awaiting the results of the
>discussion, so there is no need specifically to "suspend" the RFD,
>because this discussion is already being reflected on news.groups.
Thank you for being reasonable.
>>Google Groups advanced search finds negligible discussion of newLISP on
>>Usenet, not that the search engine has been working adequately for over
>>a year.
>Check out the "newLISP fan club" (see
>http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/). There are a total of 14448
>articles by 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at
>11:52 AM (local time here). That would seem to be quite a bit of
>discussion.
Unfortunately, discussion of a topic on a Web board isn't relevant to
possible future discussion of that topic on Usenet. Usenet users
demonstrate their interest in discussing a topic by actually discussing
the topic in a newsgroup for a broader topic or a related topic.
Start the discussion TODAY. Use Subject tags like [newLISP] to make
discussion more prominent. Pick one group to have newLISP discussion in
(probably comp.lang.lisp) and look for newLISP discussion in other
programming and computer language newsgroups and wherever applications
written in newLISP are discussed and encourage them to participate in
ongoing threads.
If discussion were to become sustainable, perhaps a minimum of 10 articles
a day over a 90-day period in which newLISP is the main topic of the
article and not just incidentally mentioned, then there may be a
sufficient base of users interested in splitting out discussion into a
new group. But if discussion is lacking, you start off with a group that
too few are interested in using and won't be widely created throughout
Usenet, which hurts discussion of the topic.
In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:36 +0000 (UTC), Adam H.
Kerman <···@chinet.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, discussion of a topic on a Web board isn't relevant to
> possible future discussion of that topic on Usenet. Usenet users
> demonstrate their interest in discussing a topic by actually discussing
> the topic in a newsgroup for a broader topic or a related topic.
>
> Start the discussion TODAY. Use Subject tags like [newLISP] to make
> discussion more prominent. Pick one group to have newLISP discussion in
> (probably comp.lang.lisp) and look for newLISP discussion in other
> programming and computer language newsgroups and wherever applications
> written in newLISP are discussed and encourage them to participate in
> ongoing threads.
>
> If discussion were to become sustainable, perhaps a minimum of 10 articles
> a day over a 90-day period in which newLISP is the main topic of the
> article and not just incidentally mentioned, then there may be a
> sufficient base of users interested in splitting out discussion into a
> new group. But if discussion is lacking, you start off with a group that
> too few are interested in using and won't be widely created throughout
> Usenet, which hurts discussion of the topic.
It's good to see a post by AHK which, for once, I totally agree with.
:-)
Invite users of the newLISP Web forums to participate in
comp.lang.lisp, and see if the result justifies a new group.
Meanwhile, put this otherwise unobjectionable RFD on ice.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Le Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:07:16 +0900,
Benjamin L. Russell a écrit :
> [...]
> May I ask either which post (a specific title and date would be
> helpful) in this newsgroup contained that decision, or what the reason
> was behind not wanting this topic split out?
Maybe this thread here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/8ce7aadcedea1659#
Cheers,
--
Jacques.
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:21:01 +0100, Kojak
<·······@janville.Borg.invalid> wrote:
>Le Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:07:16 +0900,
>Benjamin L. Russell a ecrit :
>
>> [...]
>> May I ask either which post (a specific title and date would be
>> helpful) in this newsgroup contained that decision, or what the reason
>> was behind not wanting this topic split out?
>
>Maybe this thread here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/8ce7aadcedea1659#
Within the above-mentioned thread, I discovered the following postings
specifically addressed to my earlier suggestion of creating a
comp.lang.newlisp newsgroup. However, I hadn't noticed the responses
at the time, and therefore was unable to respond to the responses, so
the matter hasn't yet been completely "decided":
Relevant Response 1:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:07:33 +0100, Majorinc Kazimir
<·····@email.address> wrote:
>Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
>
>>
>> Along the same lines, I wish to propose creating a comp.lang.newlisp
>> newsgroup for discussing newLISP-specifc issues. While newLISP
>> currently has a Web-based forum (see
>> http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), for various reasons, it can still
>> be useful to have a USENET newsgroup as well.
>
>Thanks Ben.
>
>Maybe in some pre-www times. Now, Usenet is dying[1] and
>I think it is great: atmosphere on Usenet is just so full
>of hate, violence and disrespect that it is better for all
>of us to retire it. World will be a better place without
>Usenet.
>
>However, as long as comp.lang.lisp is important general
>lisp forum, it has a sense to maintain some presence here.
This post does not specifically present an argument against creating
comp.lang.newlisp, so I will not respond to this argument
specifically.
Relevant Response 2:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:34:23 -0700, Evans Winner <······@timbral.net>
wrote:
>[...]
>
>As for splitting comp.lang.lisp to comp.lang.lisp.cl and
>comp.lang.lisp.scheme and comp.lang.lisp.stewLISP [sic] and so
>forth, the putative benefits of a split -- possibly slightly
>more focused threads -- should be balanced by the fact that
>Usenet groups tend to need a kind of "critical mass" of
>interest in a specific group in order to keep things moving;
>splitting comp.lang.lisp might could just have the effect of
>diffusing energy....
There already is a "critical mass" of interest for newLISP: According
to the "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), there are a total of 14448
articles by 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at
11:52 AM (local time here). Three-hundred forty-six users having
written 14448 articles sounds like a "critical mass" of interest (at
least to me); unfortunately, they are currently forced to use a
Web-based interface, whether they like it or not, because a USENET
newsgroup does not yet exist. Creating a new newLISP newsgroup could
probably obtain a "critical mass" of users just from users of the
current Web-based forum who would prefer a USENET newsgroup (for
example, I am one such user).
Another argument against creating a new comp.lang.newlisp newsgroup is
as follows:
Argument:
Comp.lang.lisp would become vacant, because the discussion would
simply move to the new forum.
Refutal:
While this might be true for a new Common Lisp-oriented
comp.lang.clisp newsgroup, by the admission of the very proponents of
this argument, 95% of the discussion on comp.lang.lisp already
concerns Common Lisp, and therefore this shouldn't be true for
newLISP; viz.:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:35:05 -0500, Barry Margolin
<······@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>
>While this group is ostensibly for the entire family of Lisp languages,
>95% of the discussions are about Common Lisp....
All the more reason to create a newsgroup specifically for discussing
newLISP.
As discussed above, it does not seem that the arguments already
mentioned in the above-mentioned thread against creating
comp.lang.newlisp appear to apply, given the situation. Comp.lang.lisp
readers could continue focusing "95% of the discussions" on Common
Lisp; newcomers to both Lisp and newLISP could focus on newLISP on
comp.lang.newlisp. USENET-oriented users from among the 346
registered users who have already contributed 14448 articles on the
"newLISP fan club", together with new readers, could very likely
provide enough "critical mass" to keep the discussion going.
-- Benjamin L. Russell
--
Benjamin L. Russell / DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
Translator/Interpreter / Mobile: +011 81 80-3603-6725
"Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
-- Matsuo Basho^
[news.groups.proposals added to Newsgroups line and f'ups directed to
news.groups.proposals]
Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> There already is a "critical mass" of interest for newLISP: According
> to the "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
> http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), there are a total of 14448
> articles by 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at
> 11:52 AM (local time here). Three-hundred forty-six users having
> written 14448 articles sounds like a "critical mass" of interest (at
> least to me); unfortunately, they are currently forced to use a
> Web-based interface, whether they like it or not, because a USENET
> newsgroup does not yet exist. Creating a new newLISP newsgroup could
> probably obtain a "critical mass" of users just from users of the
> current Web-based forum who would prefer a USENET newsgroup (for
> example, I am one such user).
Are there any other users of the Web-based forum who would prefer a
Usenet group? If there are, they need to post a followup in
news.groups.proposals to the RFD indicating whether they support the
proposal.
> USENET-oriented users from among the 346
> registered users who have already contributed 14448 articles on the
> "newLISP fan club", together with new readers, could very likely
> provide enough "critical mass" to keep the discussion going.
Users of Web fora very seldom move to Usenet. As Peter Ross has said,
you need a critical mass to keep discussion going, and so far there has
been no evidence posted suggesting that any of the other 345 registered
users want to post to a Usenet group or would use the group if it were
created.
--
Kathy, Member of B8MB, speaking only for myself
Benjamin L. Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>There already is a "critical mass" of interest for newLISP: According
>to the "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
>http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/), there are a total of 14448
>articles by 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at
>11:52 AM (local time here). Three-hundred forty-six users having
>written 14448 articles sounds like a "critical mass" of interest (at
>least to me);
You've identified Web users. I looked for Usenet discussion, which was
negligible, a couple of dozen mentions in the last 90 days.
>unfortunately, they are currently forced to use a Web-based interface,
>whether they like it or not, because a USENET newsgroup does not yet
>exist.
That's a common misconception. Sending a newgroup message DOES NOT
magically turn Usenet into a well-used forum for discussing newLISP.
It's just a newsgroup name, of no possible interest to those who don't
use Usenet.
>Creating a new newLISP newsgroup could probably obtain a "critical mass"
>of users just from users of the current Web-based forum who would prefer
>a USENET newsgroup (for example, I am one such user).
Every proponent promises future traffic. But the truth of the matter is
that you cannot speak for anyone who isn't using Usenet for this
discussion. Kindly think about this before making a promise you aren't
capable of fulfilling.
In news.announce.newgroups on Mon, 9 Mar 2009 23:18:03 EDT, Benjamin
L.Russell <············@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.lang.newlisp
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.lang.newlisp.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE:
> For your newsgroups file:
>
> comp.lang.newlisp The newLISP programming language.
1. Though it may do no harm, the blank line is non-standard.
2. You may be able to expand your Description to include more
searchable keywords.
3. Since newLISP is a dialect of LISP, a better name for the group
would be comp.lang.lisp.newlisp. Compare com.lang.lisp.mcl.
> RATIONALE: comp.lang.newlisp
>
> I went looking for a Big-8 group where I could discuss topics and
> issues related to the newLISP programming language.
>
> newLISP (see http://www.newlisp.org/) is a Lisp-1 dialect of the Lisp
> programming language. It currently has a base of at least 346
> registered users (as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM (Tokyo
> time), and is a general-purpose scripting language. It comes with a
> fast, light, multi-tab DrScheme-style IDE (see
> http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?page=IDE) equipped with syntax
> highlighting and a built-in REPL.
>
> There is a "newLISP fan club" Web-based forum (see
> http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/) with a total of 14448 articles by
> 346 registered users, as of Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 11:52 AM
> (Tokyo time). However, the forum requires use of a browser, and many
> old-time USENET users object to a Web-based interface for programming
> language discussion. Also, many of the users on this forum are of a
> very elementary level and very application-oriented, and I would like
> to promote more theoretical discussion of semantical issues related to
> the programming language newLISP. In addition, I wish to encourage
> posts by more sophisticated users, such as those of the academic
> community in programming language theory.
Your aims are worthy, but where are the users you want to attract
going to come from? Google Groups shows only 8 mentions of newLISP in
the past three months, which is hardly enough to justify a new group.
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=newlisp&as_mind=10&as_minm=12&as_miny=2008&as_maxd=9&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2009&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=groups.google.com>
Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
popular on the Web, proves nothing.
You don't want to go to a lot of trouble and have nothing to show for
it but ~3 posts a month.
Note that both comp.lang.lisp.x and comp.lang.lisp.franz were removed
in 2006 for lack of traffic.
>
> Comp.lang.lisp covers Lisp dialects of all sorts, but has a rather
> Common Lisp-oriented focus. Comp.lang.scheme covers dialects of the
> Scheme programming language, of which newLISP is not a dialect.
> Comp.lang.functional covers functional programming dialects of all
> sorts, but much of the discussion there would be confusing to new
> users of newLISP, who are not aware of such differences as a Lisp-1
> vs. a Lisp-2 dialect, or of a statically typed programming language
> vs. a dynamically typed programming language, and so forth.
>
> If created, this group would be limited to discussion of topics and
> issues related to the newLISP programming language, but excluding
> announcements. Users of comp.lang.newlisp may also be interested in
> having a separate group, comp.lang.newslisp.announce, to discuss
> related announcements. Both groups should, IMO, be included in any
> votes taken.
Do you have a moderator for the *.announce group if it's decided that
it's needed?
Would it not be simpler to encourage announcements to be tagged (e.g.
with "[ANN]") to make them easy to find?
In practice, I find that *.announce groups are hardly used, and that
it's unsafe to expect announcements to appear in them instead of in
the related discussion groups. The result is that I have to read two
groups to be sure of seeing announcements, which defeats the purpose
of having a separate *,announce group.
> CHARTER:
>
> comp.lang.newlisp is an unmoderated group for the discussion
> of topics and issues related to the newLISP programming language.
> Topics include programming language theory, functional programming,
> multimedia programming, formal semantics, syntax, and any other topics
> related to the newLISP programming language.
>
> Posters are expected to abide by normal Usenet standards of decorum,
> and to ignore articles intended to disrupt the group. The usual
> suspects are prohibited (spam, binaries, direct advertising, etc.)
The charter seems OK to me.
<...>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
>
> {2006-11-30 Newest version of this boilerplate}
> {2009-03-06 1st RFD}
> {2009-03-10 2nd RFD}
Er, what?
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
> Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
> when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
> the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
> popular on the Web, proves nothing.
Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
the other hand, may archieve something.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
>> when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
>> the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
>> popular on the Web, proves nothing.
>
> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
> the other hand, may archieve something.
1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
> In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
> Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
>>> when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
>>> the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
>>> popular on the Web, proves nothing.
>>
>> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>> the other hand, may archieve something.
>
> 1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
gmame has also both web interface, smtp (mail-list) and nntp
interfaces (but I don't know if they're bidirectional).
> 2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
In general the worth of a network in proportional to its size�, so
fusionning two separate networks would be a very good thing.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:15:17 +0100, Pascal J.
Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
>> Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
>>>> when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
>>>> the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
>>>> popular on the Web, proves nothing.
>>>
>>> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>>> the other hand, may archieve something.
>>
>> 1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
>
> GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
But is the Google code portable?
> gmame has also both web interface, smtp (mail-list) and nntp
> interfaces (but I don't know if they're bidirectional).
gmane.* groups and the associated mailing lists are bidirectional.
There's a similar relationship between linux.debian.* newsgroups and
Debian mailing lists. Both seem to work quite well.
However, neither of these invloves a link between a Usenet newsgroup
and a Web forum. Consider <http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/>,
mentioned in the RFD. There are six separate forums there. How can
they be translated into a single newsgroup.
It seems to be quite common for a newsgroup to be archived on a Web
site, and it would presumably be easy to add a seventh newLISP forum
to archive comp.lang.(lisp.)newlisp, but can phpBB (and similar Web
forum software) convert Web forum posts into acceptable Usenet
articles?
>> 2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
>
> It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
> would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
> but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
Do they want to do that?
If this is practicable, I foresee copyright issues. Do users of Web
forums want their posts to circulate uncontrollably around Usenet?
Also, Web forums are usually moderated, and this isn't a proposal for
a moderated newsgroup.
> In general the worth of a network in proportional to its size², so
> fusionning two separate networks would be a very good thing.
If it's possible, it might be an interesting thing to try.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
> However, neither of these invloves a link between a Usenet newsgroup
> and a Web forum. Consider <http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/>,
> mentioned in the RFD. There are six separate forums there. How can
> they be translated into a single newsgroup.
For simplicity they would have to be translated into separate subgroups.
> It seems to be quite common for a newsgroup to be archived on a Web
> site, and it would presumably be easy to add a seventh newLISP forum
> to archive comp.lang.(lisp.)newlisp, but can phpBB (and similar Web
> forum software) convert Web forum posts into acceptable Usenet
> articles?
That's my point. Have somebody write the code to make them cappable.
>>> 2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
>>
>> It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
>> would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
>> but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
>
> Do they want to do that?
I know for sure that I won't read and much less post answers to any
webforum. On the other hand, I don't mind if my usenet posts are
forwarded to mail-list, and logged or posted in web forums.
> If this is practicable, I foresee copyright issues. Do users of Web
> forums want their posts to circulate uncontrollably around Usenet?
I don't know. Let's ask them.
> Also, Web forums are usually moderated, and this isn't a proposal for
> a moderated newsgroup.
A good webforum <-> nntp gateway will have to be able to handle
moderated newsgroups.
Yes, it means that the proposal would have to be the creation of
newsgroups parallel to the web forums in question, and with similar
characteristics.
>> In general the worth of a network in proportional to its size�, so
>> fusionning two separate networks would be a very good thing.
>
> If it's possible, it might be an interesting thing to try.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:31:31 +0100, ···@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) wrote in
<··············@pbourguignon.anevia.com>:
>That's my point. Have somebody write the code to make them cappable.
There are some mail-to-news packages and news-to-web archiving
scripts.
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:mail-to-news&s=gateway
I think some bi-directional packages have been written
for some forums. I see some traffic from time to
time in a newsgroup I read.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:31:31 +0100, Pascal J.
Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> However, neither of these invloves a link between a Usenet newsgroup
>> and a Web forum. Consider <http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/>,
>> mentioned in the RFD. There are six separate forums there.
It seems I miscounted and there are five.
>> How can
>> they be translated into a single newsgroup.
>
> For simplicity they would have to be translated into separate subgroups.
There's no RFD for that, and I'd be rather surprised if an RFD for
five new newLISP groups stood any chance of being accepted.
>> It seems to be quite common for a newsgroup to be archived on a Web
>> site, and it would presumably be easy to add a seventh newLISP forum
>> to archive comp.lang.(lisp.)newlisp, but can phpBB (and similar Web
>> forum software) convert Web forum posts into acceptable Usenet
>> articles?
>
> That's my point. Have somebody write the code to make them cappable.
The code has to be written and demonstrated to be usable before your
intriguing idea can affect the current RFD.
>>>> 2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
>>>
>>> It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
>>> would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
>>> but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
>>
>> Do they want to do that?
>
> I know for sure that I won't read and much less post answers to any
> webforum. On the other hand, I don't mind if my usenet posts are
> forwarded to mail-list, and logged or posted in web forums.
Same here, if I'm posting to linux.* or gmane.* groups. But it would
be unprecedented for a bidirectional mail<>news or web<>news gateway
to exist in the Big-8, and I don't want to have to adjust my Usenet
style of posting for the benefit of Web readers.
>> If this is practicable, I foresee copyright issues. Do users of Web
>> forums want their posts to circulate uncontrollably around Usenet?
>
> I don't know. Let's ask them.
As a news.groupie, that's not my job, fortunately. Destroying
proponents' dreams that "If we build it they will come" is usually my
job. :-)
>> Also, Web forums are usually moderated, and this isn't a proposal for
>> a moderated newsgroup.
>
> A good webforum <-> nntp gateway will have to be able to handle
> moderated newsgroups.
>
> Yes, it means that the proposal would have to be the creation of
> newsgroups parallel to the web forums in question, and with similar
> characteristics.
OK, but that's not what's being proposed at present.
Your idea is much bigger and much more controversial than a new
newsgroup for discussion of newLISP. It's an interesting idea, but
crossposting discussion of it outside news.groups is only going to
annoy the good people of comp.lang.lisp.
[Followup-To set]
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross wrote:
> There's no RFD for that, and I'd be rather surprised if an RFD for
> five new newLISP groups stood any chance of being accepted.
I'm glad I was finished with the morning caffeine jolt when I read that
or you'd owe me a new keyboard and screen. You're very funny when you
try to be "reasonable."
The Skirvin Component has been creaming its jeans for a couple years now
to get some web<>gateway newsgroups set up.
B/
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:31:31 +0100, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> However, neither of these invloves a link between a Usenet newsgroup
>> and a Web forum. Consider <http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/>,
>> mentioned in the RFD. There are six separate forums there. How can
>> they be translated into a single newsgroup.
>
> For simplicity they would have to be translated into separate subgroups.
One of the board gaming web forums has nntp access, and they use things
like subject tags to handle the various sections of the forum.
Going bidirectional using tags would pretty much require moderation to
enforce whatever tagging scheme was used.
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
In article <··············@pbourguignon.anevia.com>,
Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
>> Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>>> the other hand, may archieve something.
>>
>> 1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
>
>GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
Of what?
>> 2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
>
>It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
>would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
Dumping users "from onto usenet [sic]" is meaningless. A gateway
being a good thing for people who want to create a newsgroup is not
meaningful. The gateway should provide some benefit to Usenet as a whole.
It should not just dump users "from onto usenet".
>but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
I don't know what an "nntp'ers" is. If you mean "people who use NNTP",
then you ought to realize that most people don't use NNTP, they use a
newsreader that uses NNTP or some other protocol to read news. Most
people wouldn't know an "NNTP" if it knocked on their door and said
"hello, I'm NNTP."
In other words, if your mythical "nntp'ers" wanted to participate in
your web forum, they would already be doing so.
>In general the worth of a network in proportional to its size�, so
>fusionning two separate networks would be a very good thing.
In general, the worth of a discussion network is proportional to the
quality of the discussion, not the number of empty groups nor the number
of groups which have duplicated content dumped into them from outside
sources.
I predict what your hypothetical gateway will accomplish is generally
pissing off the web users who object to all the crap coming from Usenet
and then demand that the forum be cleaned up and moderated. And a general
pissing off of the Usenet users who understand what "unmoderated" means
and get tired of the web users demanding things be censored. This is not
a good result. Web fora and (unmoderated) Usenet groups are two very
different things, and it is not always a "Good Thing" to fuse them.
······@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) writes:
> In article <··············@pbourguignon.anevia.com>,
> Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
>>> Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>>> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>>>> the other hand, may archieve something.
>>>
>>> 1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
>>
>>GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
>
> Of what?
That's strange this inability to refer to one line above.
Let's do some copy-and-paste:
GoogleGroup is an existance proof of such a gateway.
> I predict what your hypothetical gateway will accomplish is generally
> pissing off the web users who object to all the crap coming from Usenet
> and then demand that the forum be cleaned up and moderated. And a general
> pissing off of the Usenet users who understand what "unmoderated" means
> and get tired of the web users demanding things be censored. This is not
> a good result. Web fora and (unmoderated) Usenet groups are two very
> different things, and it is not always a "Good Thing" to fuse them.
Don't we already see that with google? (Or is it the "AOL" effect?)
Nonetheless, there are a lot of webforum dedicated to technical
questions, and I thing we'd all benefit if these one were gateway'ed.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
In article <··············@galatea.local>,
Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>······@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) writes:
>
>> In article <··············@pbourguignon.anevia.com>,
>> Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> In news.groups on Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:06:42 +0100, Pascal J.
>>>> Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>>>> Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>>>>> the other hand, may archieve something.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
>>>
>>>GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
>>
>> Of what?
>
>That's strange this inability to refer to one line above.
I read your one line above. You claim it is a proof, but since it does not
answer the question, I asked you what it did prove.
>> I predict what your hypothetical gateway will accomplish is generally
>> pissing off the web users who object to all the crap coming from Usenet
>> and then demand that the forum be cleaned up and moderated. And a general
>> pissing off of the Usenet users who understand what "unmoderated" means
>> and get tired of the web users demanding things be censored. This is not
>> a good result. Web fora and (unmoderated) Usenet groups are two very
>> different things, and it is not always a "Good Thing" to fuse them.
>
>Don't we already see that with google? (Or is it the "AOL" effect?)
Yes, people who use the atrocious web-based newsreader run by Google
do not understand the system they are accessing or the history. They
often whine about the awful things they see, unaware that they are not
using a web-board that Google can moderate.
>Nonetheless, there are a lot of webforum dedicated to technical
>questions, and I thing we'd all benefit if these one were gateway'ed.
I do not. People who wish to use a moderated web forum can do so without
it being dumped into umoderated Usenet, and vice versa. They are two
different things, and, using your "cut-and-paste" review system, it is
not always a "Good Thing" to fuse them.
You have not yet provided reason why Usenet is the correct forum for
this discussion, and yet to prove that people ON Usenet are discussing it.
······@TheWorld.com (Mark Kramer) writes:
> You have not yet provided reason why Usenet is the correct forum for
> this discussion, and yet to prove that people ON Usenet are discussing it.
My reasons are more technical than other.
I find it more practical to interact in these discussions via gnus
than via a web browser, for one thing, and I find it more practical to
receive automatically the posts in batch (either via smpt or a local
nntp server) than to have to browse a web site to fetch the
information.
It's the same technical reasons why I don't go fetch RSS news (when
they're not available otherwise), but I use a rss2email gateway to
fetch them automatically for me, and forward them to my mail box.
Also the same technical reasons why I wrote a script to scan a few web
pages I'm interested in, to get them and forward them to my mail box
when they change, when the same information is not published in a
normal mail list or usenet group.
I don't have the time to go fetch manually all these data on the web.
But I scan periodically my mail box (and have filters configured
there).
All I say is that if people organizing web forum want to reach me,
they'd better configure a mail-list or nntp gateway. It looks like
people of newLISP webforum are feeling the need to reach usenet
people...
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>Pascal J. Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> wrote:
>>>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes:
>>>>Experience suggests that users of Web forums don't switch to Usenet
>>>>when a Usenet group becomes available. There may be exceptions, but
>>>>the mere existence of a popular Web forum, or evidence that a topic is
>>>>popular on the Web, proves nothing.
>>>Providing a bidirectional gateway between the web forum and usenet, on
>>>the other hand, may archieve something.
>>1. Are there any working implementations of such a gateway?
>GoogleGroup is an existance proof.
Whoa. Google Groups is horrid. It does not produce conventional, let
alone standards-compliant Usenet messages. Plain text is beyond its
ability.
Just because there's an interface doesn't make something Usenet.
>>2. What do you think such a gateway would achieve?
>It would dump 15000 articles / 350 posters from onto usenet (so it
>would be a good thing for those who want to create comp.lang.newlisp),
>but foremost, it would allow nntp'ers to participate in webforums.
If you want participation in the Web forums from the Usenet side (you're
really not describing something the other way around), then there should
be a News server at the site, because you're really speaking of a local
newsgroup and not a Usenet group. You mentioned gmane, which is how
their News-to-Web interface operates on a server they provide on site.
>In general the worth of a network in proportional to its size�, so
>fusionning two separate networks would be a very good thing.
Unlikely. Web users of a bulletin board tend not to write messages in a
conventional Usenet style, making it painful to read from the News side.
Adam,
Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
or Newlisp programming language.
Conclude for yourself,
--
http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com
Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>Adam,
>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>or Newlisp programming language.
>Conclude for yourself,
Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<···@chinet.com> writes
>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>
>>Adam,
>
>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>or Newlisp programming language.
>
>>Conclude for yourself,
>
>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>
>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>>Adam,
>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
Nor do you, Thomas. Nor do you.
Two gentlemen make all the decisions around here: Mr. Ignorance and Mr.
Apathy. Mr. Pontificator is kept locked in the closet and laughed at.
In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<···@chinet.com> writes
>Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>
>>>>Adam,
>
>>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>
>>>>Conclude for yourself,
>
>>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>
>>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>
>>That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>>decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
>
>Nor do you, Thomas. Nor do you.
Possibly not - but when you state things like quoted above, you can give
the proponent the wrong impression. I'm simply trying to correct that
impression.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>>>>Adam,
>>>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>>>That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>>>decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
>>Nor do you, Thomas. Nor do you.
>Possibly not - but when you state things like quoted above, you can give
>the proponent the wrong impression. I'm simply trying to correct that
>impression.
Sorry, Thomas. Your statement has long been labeled The Big Lie. Nice
bit of cowardly selected editing.
Possibly not? When did Bambi develop the magic ability to force every
News server worldwide to create its newsgroups? I missed the memo. Can
you tone down your enormous ego just slightly?
In news.groups on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:41 +0000, Thomas Lee
<···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
> <···@chinet.com> writes
>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>
>>>Adam,
>>
>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>
>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>
>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>
>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>
> That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
> decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
Do you disagree with Adam's view? If so, please give your reasons.
"I'm a member of the Big-8 Management Board and Adam is a mere
peasant" isn't good enough. Google "argumentum ad verecundiam".
Adam's view is the view of the standard resources for newsgroup
proponents, e.g.
"If a new group is to be justified, its topic must already be under
discussion somewhere in existing Usenet groups."
http://nylon.net/alt/
There's also this, from somebody even more important and powerful than
you.
"Users of Web fora very seldom move to Usenet."
Kathy Morgan, co-Chairman of the Big-8 Management Board, in
Message-ID: <·······························@spamcop.net>
There's a consensus of well-informed opinion about this. You're
entitled to be in a minority, of course, but you should say why.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
In message <··················@pjr.gotdns.org>, Peter J Ross
<···@example.invalid> writes
>In news.groups on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:41 +0000, Thomas Lee
><···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>> <···@chinet.com> writes
>>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Adam,
>>>
>>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>>
>>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>>
>>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>>
>> That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>> decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
>
>Do you disagree with Adam's view?
To a degree. I think there can be a place for a group that will generate
discussion. Tim's experiment showed some value in that. Of course,
there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to create some DOA
groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that would be used.
Most importantly, I'm less concerned with whether traffic occurring
today, and more concerned with whether traffic will occur in the short
to medium term. If, for example, we had 20-30 people saying they'd would
follow and contribute on a group on PowerShell V3, that might be a good
reason to create one, even though PowerShell V3 is years away and
there's not much if any discussion of it today.
> If so, please give your reasons.
>"I'm a member of the Big-8 Management Board and Adam is a mere
>peasant" isn't good enough. Google "argumentum ad verecundiam".
While your reasoning may be true, that's not the point. Yes, on occasion
I disagree with his advice. I believe we should be open to new topics
and new ways of doing things.
But Adam's assertion could lead to mistaken assumptions which I tried to
correct.
>Adam's view is the view of the standard resources for newsgroup
>proponents, e.g.
>
>"If a new group is to be justified, its topic must already be under
>discussion somewhere in existing Usenet groups."
>http://nylon.net/alt/
That can be good advice. But things have moved on a bit and we need to
be open to that.
>There's also this, from somebody even more important and powerful than
>you.
>
>"Users of Web fora very seldom move to Usenet."
>
>Kathy Morgan, co-Chairman of the Big-8 Management Board, in
>Message-ID: <·······························@spamcop.net>
I wasn't talking specifically about this. And to some degree (in the
general case of web users not moving to NNTP based communication) there
is demonstrable proof that she is not right in all cases.
>There's a consensus of well-informed opinion about this. You're
>entitled to be in a minority, of course, but you should say why.
See above.
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter J Ross <···@example.invalid> writes
>>on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:41 +0000, Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>>>>Adam,
>>>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>>>That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>>>decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
>>Do you disagree with Adam's view?
>To a degree. I think there can be a place for a group that will generate
>discussion.
Unbelievable. Nobody is disagreeing with that platitude. The issue was,
is, and always will be that the mere fact of sending the newgroup
message itself does not create discussion of the topic on Usenet where
negligible discussion is taking place.
>Tim's experiment showed some value in that.
Uh, really? Of the groups in the It's Obvious! groups that weren't
redundant of existing alt groups, which ones developed sufficient,
sustainable on-topic traffic showing a favorable outcome to your experiment?
Please, please name just one group that succeeded on the basis of your
supersticion.
>Of course, there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to create
>some DOA groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that would be used.
Congratulations on achieving your goal.
Of course, YOU don't CREATE any groups; perhaps you'll learn that basic
fact about Usenet one day.
>Most importantly, I'm less concerned with whether traffic occurring
>today, and more concerned with whether traffic will occur in the short
>to medium term.
Oh, wow. And the rest of us aren't? Good one, Thomas. You're arguing
against people who oppose future traffic. That must be it. Go slay that
dragon for the good of Usenet, Thomas.
>If, for example, we had 20-30 people saying they'd would follow and
>contribute on a group on PowerShell V3, that might be a good reason to
>create one, even though PowerShell V3 is years away and there's not much
>if any discussion of it today.
I'd believe their sincerity that they were interested in discussing a
topic on Usenet if they were discussing the topic on Usenet. Who cares
what people promise to discuss tomorrow? That doesn't prove that people
will will discuss it tomorrow. It's typical of your meaningless excuses
to send newgroup messages.
>>If so, please give your reasons. "I'm a member of the Big-8 Management
>>Board and Adam is a mere peasant" isn't good enough. Google "argumentum
>>ad verecundiam".
>While your reasoning may be true, that's not the point. Yes, on occasion
>I disagree with his advice. I believe we should be open to new topics
>and new ways of doing things.
What new way? You're following in the footsteps of thousands of
proponents who have failed to start viable newsgroups before, who
stated, claiming sincerely, that the group should be started on the
promise of future traffic. As I was never a hierarchy administrator, I
wonder what new way your trying that was different from what I did.
>But Adam's assertion could lead to mistaken assumptions which I tried to
>correct.
We're still waiting for you to tell us why I'm wrong, using a legitimate
argument, not just your belief in future traffic.
>>Adam's view is the view of the standard resources for newsgroup
>>proponents, e.g.
>>"If a new group is to be justified, its topic must already be under
>>discussion somewhere in existing Usenet groups."
>>http://nylon.net/alt/
>That can be good advice. But things have moved on a bit and we need to
>be open to that.
Still waiting for you to provide us with an example.
>>There's also this, from somebody even more important and powerful than
>>you.
>>"Users of Web fora very seldom move to Usenet."
>>Kathy Morgan, co-Chairman of the Big-8 Management Board, in
>>Message-ID: <·······························@spamcop.net>
>I wasn't talking specifically about this. And to some degree (in the
>general case of web users not moving to NNTP based communication) there
>is demonstrable proof that she is not right in all cases.
It's funny how you never provide any examples to back up your
assertions.
In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<···@chinet.com> writes
>It's funny how you never provide any examples to back up your
>assertions.
The two examples I was discussing were those provided by Microsoft to
MCTs and MVPs. I'd happily give you the URLs but as they are password
protected, you'd not be able to get there to see for yourself. They
certainly exist.
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> writes
>>It's funny how you never provide any examples to back up your
>>assertions.
>The two examples I was discussing were those provided by Microsoft to
>MCTs and MVPs. I'd happily give you the URLs but as they are password
>protected, you'd not be able to get there to see for yourself. They
>certainly exist.
Too late. You already explained in another message that they weren't
Usenet groups. No, you haven't provided an example of how Kathy was wrong.
Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> writes:
> Of course, there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to
> create some DOA groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that
> would be used.
(I take it you intended to say a few dead groups is an acceptable
price to pay for a successful group.) This is certainly a reasonable
opinion. I wonder, though, what came of the obvious groups? How are
they faring these days?
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
In news.groups on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:33:11 +0200, Aatu Koskensilta
<················@uta.fi> wrote:
> Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Of course, there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to
>> create some DOA groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that
>> would be used.
>
> (I take it you intended to say a few dead groups is an acceptable
> price to pay for a successful group.) This is certainly a reasonable
> opinion. I wonder, though, what came of the obvious groups? How are
> they faring these days?
Here's a snapshot of the past week's articles:
186 [211] misc.phone.mobile.iphone
12 [ 15] rec.games.video.sony.playstation3
6 [ 7] rec.games.video.nintendo.wii
4 [ 4] comp.internet.services.google
2 [ 3] rec.media.players.portable
1 [ 13] rec.media.players.portable.ipod
1 [ 2] comp.internet.services.video.youtube
0 [ 0] comp.file-sharing.bittorrent
0 [ 0] comp.internet.services.blog.livejournal
0 [ 0] comp.internet.services.social.myspace
0 [ 0] comp.internet.services.wiki
0 [ 0] misc.phone.mobile
0 [ 0] rec.arts.tv.comedy.the-office
0 [ 0] rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor
0 [ 0] rec.games.online.mmorpg.world-of-warcraft [rmgrouped]
0 [ 0] rec.games.video.microsoft.xbox360
The first column counts only non-crossposted articles that have a
References line - i.e. they're probably replies made by people who
read the group. The extra traffic in the iPod group is crossposted to
one or more comp.sys.mac.* groups.
For some statistics from late 2007, see:
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/699580c001caf44e>
<http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/msg/0316eb6a434bc633>
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
In message <··············@alatheia.dsl.inet.fi>, Aatu Koskensilta
<················@uta.fi> writes
>Thomas Lee <···@psp.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Of course, there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to
>> create some DOA groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that
>> would be used.
>
>(I take it you intended to say a few dead groups is an acceptable
>price to pay for a successful group.)
Yes.
>This is certainly a reasonable
>opinion. I wonder, though, what came of the obvious groups? How are
>they faring these days?
IIRC, Some are doing OK, others are dead now (and were probably DOA
anyway).
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee - ···@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
In news.groups on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:28:02 +0000, Thomas Lee
<···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <··················@pjr.gotdns.org>, Peter J Ross
> <···@example.invalid> writes
>>In news.groups on Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:41 +0000, Thomas Lee
>><···@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
>>> <···@chinet.com> writes
>>>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Adam,
>>>>
>>>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>>>
>>>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>>>
>>> That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
>>> decisions - so caveat emptor or what ever the usenet equivalent is.
>>
>>Do you disagree with Adam's view?
>
> To a degree. I think there can be a place for a group that will generate
> discussion.
Groups don't generate discussion. People generate discussion.
> Tim's experiment showed some value in that.
As far as I can tell, the iPhone group and possibly one other
"obvious" group have been successful. THat's not a good success rate.
> Of course,
> there's a risk of creating dead groups. I'd prefer to create some DOA
> groups at the expense of NOT creating groups that would be used.
But the non-existence of, for example, comp.lang.lisp.newlisp doesn't
stop people discussing newLISP on Usenet. There's already a group for
every possible topic on Usenet, even if it's only misc.misc. Splitting
discussion is a bad idea.
> Most importantly, I'm less concerned with whether traffic occurring
> today, and more concerned with whether traffic will occur in the short
> to medium term.
Good. Please sign my "bring back Big-8 voting" petition.
> If, for example, we had 20-30 people saying they'd would
> follow and contribute on a group on PowerShell V3, that might be a good
> reason to create one, even though PowerShell V3 is years away and
> there's not much if any discussion of it today.
Is there no existing group where it can be discussed when the time
comes?
>> If so, please give your reasons.
>>"I'm a member of the Big-8 Management Board and Adam is a mere
>>peasant" isn't good enough. Google "argumentum ad verecundiam".
>
> While your reasoning may be true, that's not the point. Yes, on occasion
> I disagree with his advice. I believe we should be open to new topics
> and new ways of doing things.
>
> But Adam's assertion could lead to mistaken assumptions which I tried to
> correct.
Well then, you'd better chase after everybody else who doesn't prefix
opinions with "im my opinion".
>>Adam's view is the view of the standard resources for newsgroup
>>proponents, e.g.
>>
>>"If a new group is to be justified, its topic must already be under
>>discussion somewhere in existing Usenet groups."
>>http://nylon.net/alt/
>
> That can be good advice. But things have moved on a bit and we need to
> be open to that.
How have things moved on? The Web has certainly moved on (becoming so
overloaded with bandwidth-wasting crap that it's almost unusable for
serious purposes), but Usenet has remained much the same, and in my
opinion it should continue to remain much the same, rather than
imitating whatever's fashionable among the unwashed masses.
>>There's also this, from somebody even more important and powerful than
>>you.
>>
>>"Users of Web fora very seldom move to Usenet."
>>
>>Kathy Morgan, co-Chairman of the Big-8 Management Board, in
>>Message-ID: <·······························@spamcop.net>
>
> I wasn't talking specifically about this. And to some degree (in the
> general case of web users not moving to NNTP based communication) there
> is demonstrable proof that she is not right in all cases.
"NNTP based communication" != Usenet.
>>There's a consensus of well-informed opinion about this. You're
>>entitled to be in a minority, of course, but you should say why.
>
> See above.
I saw. I read. I argued. :-)
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Kathy Morgan wrote:
> Actually, my vote is exactly equal to Thomas Lee's.
No, it isn't. Yours is pro forma. The vote's already been taken by the
time it gets to you.
B/
Thomas Lee wrote:
> In message <············@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
> <···@chinet.com> writes
>>Kazimir Majorinc <·····@email.address> wrote:
>>
>>>Adam,
>>
>>>Newlisp community doesn't show an interest for
>>>Usenet group. This topic was never discussed
>>>or proposed on Newlisp forum. Russell and
>>>Bourguignon are not users of Newlisp forum
>>>or Newlisp programming language.
>>
>>>Conclude for yourself,
>>
>>Thanks for the information. Not every topic is discussed on Usenet.
>>
>>It cannot be emphasized enough to proponents that new groups should be
>>proposed only for existing discussion currently taking place on Usenet.
>
> That is your view and you are entitled to it. But you do not make the
> decisions
And yet just a couple weeks ago you were telling me how non-important
you say you are.
And you make horrid decisions. Say, how's that Jericho tv group you
voted for, that had already been cancelled but your excuse was you
"don't watch American tv."
Hows soc.men.moderated, soc.support.stroke, the vision group, and the
list goes on and on and on about all your WONDERFUL decisions.
You couldn't decide which hole to crap out of.
B/
Dr. Brian Leverich <········@linkpendium.com> wrote:
>On 2009-03-11, Adam H. Kerman <···@chinet.com> wrote:
>>You're the proponent. Is there some reason why you want this discussion
>>taking place in news.groups.proposals, a moderated newsgroup, as opposed
>>to news.groups, an unmoderated group?
>I don't read news.groups -- the signal to noise ratio there is
>vanishingly close to zero.
I'll answer this in unmoderated groups.
If you don't read news.groups, then you couldn't possibly have any idea
what the signal to noise ratio is, so perhaps you would kindly withdraw
that comment.
>I'm prolly not the only major-site news admin with that behavior
>pattern.
> ###
>And, as a lisp hacker since '74, I think comp.lang.newlisp is a
>GOOD idea. I generally don't bother with Web forums, but I
>would follow the newsgroup.
May I ask why, if you think Usenet is the appropriate medium to discuss
newLISP, you've never posted about it?
"If somebody else starts an interesting discussion, I'll read it. But I
wouldn't dream of starting an interesting discussion myself."
It's critical to limit analysis of the potential usefulness of proposed
groups to discussion actually taking place on Usenet. Potential
discussion is irrelevant.
Noted that you don't actually potentially offer to participate, just lurk.