Re: PROPOSAL: alt.comp.retro-computing

OldbieOne <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:30:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]>:
>>OldbieOne <[email protected]> wrote:

>>><snipped>

>>>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.

>Does *everything* have to be in a charter, or just a broad outline?

The charter is the proponent's one chance to describe on-topic
discussion. If the group doesn't fail (and nearly every single new
newsgroup fails miserably), then on-topic discussion will be determined
by what the regulars of the newsgroup discuss.

>. . . 

>>>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

>I care for open and honest discussion, just not your snark

You had better find a different medium of discussion that doesn't have
snark.

>>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.

>There is no "right" or "wrong" person to form a request where none currently
>exists. If I'm the wrong person to make a proposal, tell me who's right, and
>I'll ask them offline. Otherwise, sei solo un iduita flammeggiante.

Any moron can send a newgroup message; 10s of thousands have done so.
It's just a matter of getting the syntax right.

Being a good proponent is real work, which I've outlined above. A lousy
proponent is someone not known for posting on topic and unaware of the
community on Usenet already discussing the topic.

It's alt.*. It's up to you if you want to make the effort.

>>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.

>If you would like a more comprehensive proposal to include every specific
>intended aspect of the group, along with numerical and empirical justification
>for each, please let me know.

sigh

You're the proponent. I want YOU to go through the justification process
so YOU are familiar with the audience and actually learn who is
motivated to change his posting habits in favor of the group you
propose. This is actual work, and it takes months. A good proponent's
job isn't finished till there's sustainable discussion in the group
which is, again, a minimum of 10 articles a day of genuine
non-crossposted on topic discussion.

I can't do these things for you.

>. . .