Re: Fediverse newsgroup

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 
> William Stickers <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>William Stickers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >>>>. . . 
> 
> >>>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.
> 
> >>Not making things worse ALWAYS matters. Doing it right ALWAYS matters.
> 
> >>Please don't hijack the proposal. He didn't request this.
> 
> >>The first failed newsgroup made Usenet worse. The first proponent who
> >>wanted a very narrow newsgroup just because he didn't want to post in a
> >>broader newsgroup and wasn't discussing the topic harmed Usenet.
> 
> >>Of course it's always mattered whether anyone is discussing the topic.
> >>Are we here for discussion, or are we here to make empty froups?
> 
> >I don't disagree with your sentiments. IMO if more people had cared a lot
> >sooner maybe it wouldn't be nearly dead now. Nearly all the groups that
> >went through the proper process are dead and it's not down to the proper
> >process being or not being followed, it's mainly down to trolling from the
> >likes of altopia and spam from google. They're gone now having done their
> >damage, but it is what it is and there is no fixing it. A thousand more
> >dead froups is gonna make no difference to it now. I don't want to hijack
> >this, I just wanted to say I can't see what difference it makes any more.
> 
> The advantage of alt.* over the Big 8 is that there are no hoops to jump
> through. We have a suggested format for the newgroup message that
> includes no boilerplate at all.
> 
> Sometimes we recommend alt.* or the Big 8 depending on how groups for
> similar topics were named, just to make it easier to find.
> 
> (There is no "we" as most others have lost interest in configging
> discussion.)
> 
> But the process on Usenet has always been about finding and promoting
> discussion of the topic. Whether the proponent or the hierarchy
> administrator sends the newgroup is irrelevant to whether the topic is
> being discussed or whether it will be discussed in future.
> 
> That's been the nature of Usenet since the beginning.
> 
> It's all about discussion and promoting discussion. Being a decent
> proponent is actual work. Such people are rarities.

Many years ago I was the successful proponent of a uk.local* group. It's been 
rmgrouped now along with many other uk* groups by the now absent UK Usenet 
Committee in a mass cull because of non use.