Re: Fediverse newsgroup

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 
> Kyonshi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 4/5/2024 7:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Blue-Maned_Hawk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Kyonshi wrote:
> >>>>On 4/4/2024 12:13 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>>>>Kyonshi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>I was thinking it might be good to have a group for discussions of the
> >>>>>>fediverse (mastodon, pixelfed, et. al.) that is not on the fediverse
> >>>>>>itself.
> 
> >>>>>>I was thinking about alt.comp.infosystems.fediverse
> 
> >>>>>If other people agree that the discussion should take place on Usenet,
> >>>>>then you'll be able to find the discussion already taking place on
> >>>>>Usenet. Discussion first, then decide if there's a need for a group. A
> >>>>>dedicated group for discussion no one wants will fail.
> 
> >>>>That's why I'm asking here you know?
> 
> >>>What i understand Mr. Kerman to be saying is that newsgroups are only
> >>>created if people are already discussing the topic of the newsgroup _in
> >>>existing newsgroups_.
> 
> >>No. You misunderstood entirely. What I said is quoted above and doesn't
> >>require reinterpretation.
> 
> >I dunno, it seemed to cover what you were saying.
> >Maybe it's not a problem with other people misunderstanding you, maybe 
> >it's more about you not expressing yourself in a way that can be 
> >understood.
> 
> Listen to me. I've been observing new newsgroups for decades in alt.*,
> the Big 8, and certain regional hierarchies. Every proponent thinks his
> idea for a newsgroup is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Let me
> assure you that it is not. I always tell proponents what they need to
> know, not what they want to hear.
> 
> Your proposed newsgroup will fail due to the difficulty of overcoming
> ignorance and apathy.
> 
> Any idiot can send a control message, which is exactly the position I
> took with llp several months ago when he was complaining about cancel
> messages in the fr.* hierarchy. I've always taken this position in alt.*
> with respect to newgroup messages. Just because you can doesn't mean you
> should. Newgroup messages are archived FOREVER. It's your name and
> reputation, and the initial newgroup message controls, so don't royally
> fuck up the syntax.
> 
> Even though a newgroup message is a type of control message, it doesn't
> control shit. It does not create a newsgroup. That is done one server at
> a time. alt.* and free.* are unadministered hierarchies. That means the
> proponent posts the newgroup message as there is no hierarchy
> administrator and no checkgroups for a canonical list of newsgroups.
> 
> But that's just an initial step. Your newgroup message hasn't created a
> newsgroup because newsgroups in unadministered hierarchies on any
> well-used server are not created without user request. Then you have the
> problem of syntax. You might get the Control header correct but screw up
> the Newsgroups file line wrong or leave it out entirely. That means the
> test newsgroups and active files at ftp.isc.org won't get updated and
> the newgroup message won't get processed at News sites that require a
> Newsgroups file line.
> 
> But say you don't fuck up syntax.
> 
> Who the hell wants this newsgroup aside from you? No one on Usenet.
> Newsgroups aren't for people in the real world who don't use Usenet.
> They are for Usenet users to better organize discussion.
> 
> There can be exceptions, like an institution shutting down its News
> server for customer support and its users deciding to use Usenet
> instead. That's an exceptional circumstance.
> 
> In the absense of discussion on Usenet, a newsgroup in and of itself
> doesn't create discussion. Won't happen. Never has.
> 
> "But there's no place to post!" Of course there is. Usenet is filled
> with empty newsgroups, in the thousands. Thousands and thousands and
> thousands of proponents have gone before you whose new groups have
> failed. There are failures in administered hierarchies too.
> 
> The worst proponents are the ones with an idea for a newsgroup but who
> themselves are not well known for discussing the topic on Usenet.
> 
> If you are truly serious about getting discussion of Fediverse going on
> Usenet, then it's up to YOU to start some. Post in the newsgroup that's
> closest to the topic. Find what other discussion on Usenet that there is
> and encourage people to discuss it in the newsgroup you found. Using an
> existing newsgroup has the advantage that it's already created on many
> News servers.
> 
> If you don't have SUSTAINABLE discussion of a topic over a recent 90 day
> period of 10 articles a day (that would be 900 articles), then there is
> no need for the newsgroup you propose and it will fail. SUSTAINABLE
> discussion IS NOT CROSSPOSTED. It IS NOT articles reposted from the Web.
> It means articles ON TOPIC written by Usenet users using their own
> words. It means a root article together with on topic followups.
> 
> If a thread doesn't develop, then that article wasn't discussed.
> 
> What I've said will not make you happy but it's what you need to know.
> 
> But if you don't care about starting a newsgroup that won't fail, if you
> don't care about your own reputation, and you somehow believe that
> getting that newgroup message archived at ftp.isc.org has given you a
> taste of immortality, sure, go ahead. No one will prevent you from
> sending a newgroup message.
> 
> It would sure be nice if you were one of those rare proponents who cared
> about making sure the topic was being well discussed on Usenet first.
> 
> Don't join the tens of thousands of idiot proponents who have gone
> before you.

Seriously, Adam, what's the point?  There's over a hundred thousand empty 
froups. No one is going to notice another one. It just doesn't matter any more. 
If I could find a swerver that would accept a control message I'd send the 
newgroup for him because one more empty froup if it isn't used makes no 
difference at all. The golden days are gone.