Re: PROPOSAL: alt.comp.retro-computing

OldbieOne <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thu, 9 Mar 2023 23:54:18 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]>:

><snipped>

>>You didn't look. There's an Italian language newsgroup.

>>it.comp.retrocomputing

>>There's always a place to discuss anything on Usenet, like
>>alt.comp.hardware.

>Outside of Italy, no one speaks Italian, my dude.

I'm pointing out the obvious that it should have come up if you had
searched properly.

>I specifically did NOT specify it a hardware group because it would not be for
>hardware, but hardware, middleware, and software. The whole enchilada. Or in
>italian, the whole plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Odd that it wasn't in the charter. I have no idea what middleware is
with respect to retrocomputing.

>Love the l@m3 attempt at trolling tho, my dude...

>Are you like 12?

This is alt.*. The proponent can do what he likes. But if you don't care
to have the proposal discussed then don't offer it for discussion.

There's always a place on Usenet to discuss a topic. The best proponents
are the ones who are well known for discussing the topic among those
already discussing the topic. The best proponents are very well
acquainted with the audience. They perform a proper justification, which
is a count of non-crossposted discussion in which the topic of the
proposed newsgroup is the main topic of the article. It's actual
discussion, not just reposted articles from the Web nor FAQ postings.

The article count is of a recent 90-day period and the proponent is
looking for an average of 10 articles a day in several newsgroups AND an
audience that's motivated to move non-crossposted discussion to the
proposed group (requesting its creation locally if it's not yet
created).

If there's no audience, then there's no need for the group.