Re: Fediverse newsgroup

lkh <[email protected]> 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

>I second that! Although just calling it alt.fediverse might even 
>work better.

There is no need for a new second-level hierarchy. Let it be named to
fit in with similar newsgroups.

Although now that I look, comp.infosystems.* is a thing, but
alt.comp.infosystems.* is not. Proposed alt.* groups shouldn't be named
to skip a hierarchy level.

If that's the name Kyonshi wants, then put it into the Big 8.

>Is it a good idea to write a more formal proposal?
>See for for example the message Re: 
>"New group proposal: alt.os.cpv" on this newsgroup, 
>Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

Of course there should be a proposal in good form.

I think it would be a good idea for the proponent to look carefully at
where the discussion of Fediverse is taking place and to count it. As
always, we're looking for an average of 10 articles a day over a recent
90-day period, articles that people write themselves and hopefully start
threads, not reposted from the Web. Too few articles a day, the group
will be a spamtrap and there won't be enough sustainable discussion.