comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion? - Scion

This is a discussion on comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion? - Scion ; I mostly lurk on this group, so I hope you don't find this an imposition, but I wondered if I could make a suggestion... In case you haven't been aware, management of the Big 8 newsgroup hierarchies (that's comp.*, rec.*, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

  1. comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    I mostly lurk on this group, so I hope you don't find this an imposition,
    but I wondered if I could make a suggestion...

    In case you haven't been aware, management of the Big 8 newsgroup
    hierarchies (that's comp.*, rec.*, sci.*, news.*, misc.*, talk.*, soc.*,
    humanities.*) have recently been liberalised such that it's much easier to
    have groups added, renamed or deleted. Previously it took a vote where you
    needed at least 100 positive votes for any change, now proposals are
    discussed and the new Big 8 Management Board will vote on it and action
    changes. In principle this means the big-8 is no longer frozen in the way
    it used to be under the previous voting system. See http://www.big-8.org/
    and the group news.groups.proposals for how the new system works.

    Anyway, I've been lurking on comp.sys.psion.* for a while and noticed that
    most of the traffic seems to be in csp.misc with the other groups receiving
    a few posts a year. I wondered if anyone thought if it would be a good idea
    to merge some of the low-traffic csp.* groups with csp.misc so that newcomers
    aren't distracted by essentially empty groups?

    What do you think? As I'm not an active poster here I'm only flagging this
    up in case someone wants to look into it - I won't be proponent. In any
    case no change would be made without a discussion (here and/or on
    news.groups.proposals). Of course if everyone thinks it's a terrible idea
    then that's fine too and comp.sys.psion.* can stay as it is.

    Just a suggestion,

    Theo
    (who is nothing to do with the B8MB, just to make that clear)

    --
    Theo Markettos theo [at] markettos.org.uk
    Clare Hall, Cambridge
    CB3 9AL, UK http://www.markettos.org.uk/

  2. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Quoting Theo Markettos's message of Yesterday:

    > Anyway, I've been lurking on comp.sys.psion.* for a while and noticed that
    > most of the traffic seems to be in csp.misc with the other groups receiving
    > a few posts a year. I wondered if anyone thought if it would be a good idea
    > to merge some of the low-traffic csp.* groups with csp.misc so that newcomers
    > aren't distracted by essentially empty groups?


    I've been thinking it would be sensible just to have comp.sys.psion as a
    single group and drop the rest, for the reasons you mentioned in your
    post. I'd be interested to know if there's any more support for this
    idea.

    --
    Damian - http://damian.snigfarp.karoo.net/
    Put "sausage" in the subject of email replies to avoid my spam trap.

  3. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Seconded!



  4. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    In article
    ,
    Damian Walker wrote:

    > I've been thinking it would be sensible just to have comp.sys.psion as a
    > single group and drop the rest, for the reasons you mentioned in your
    > post. I'd be interested to know if there's any more support for this
    > idea.


    Seems a reasonable idea, now traffic is so low. I leave all the Psion
    groups subscribed, but these days mostly lurk.

    --
    http://www.ericlindsay.com

  5. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    I agree, but please don't forget the German "de.comp.sys.handhelds.psion" .
    It is also used frequently!
    Maybe 2 seperate groups, one for each language?

    Richard van Stappershoef

    "Damian Walker" schreef in bericht
    news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0710280551080.27794@nero.devel. snigfarp.karoo.net...
    > Quoting Theo Markettos's message of Yesterday:
    >
    >> Anyway, I've been lurking on comp.sys.psion.* for a while and noticed
    >> that
    >> most of the traffic seems to be in csp.misc with the other groups
    >> receiving
    >> a few posts a year. I wondered if anyone thought if it would be a good
    >> idea
    >> to merge some of the low-traffic csp.* groups with csp.misc so that
    >> newcomers
    >> aren't distracted by essentially empty groups?

    >
    > I've been thinking it would be sensible just to have comp.sys.psion as a
    > single group and drop the rest, for the reasons you mentioned in your
    > post. I'd be interested to know if there's any more support for this
    > idea.
    >
    > --
    > Damian - http://damian.snigfarp.karoo.net/
    > Put "sausage" in the subject of email replies to avoid my spam trap.




  6. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Richard van Stappershoef schrieb:
    > I agree, but please don't forget the German "de.comp.sys.handhelds.psion" .
    > It is also used frequently!


    I strongly agree!

    > Maybe 2 seperate groups, one for each language?


    Could be a solution. There's also one in French, fr.comp.sys.psion, used
    frequently.

    Psionara!
    Urs

  7. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Urs wrote:
    > Richard van Stappershoef schrieb:
    > > I agree, but please don't forget the German
    > > "de.comp.sys.handhelds.psion" . It is also used frequently!

    >
    > I strongly agree!
    >
    > > Maybe 2 seperate groups, one for each language?

    >
    > Could be a solution. There's also one in French, fr.comp.sys.psion, used
    > frequently.


    The convention (roughly) is that national and/or non-English groups go in
    their own hierarchy (so es.* is for Spain and esp.* has international
    Spanish-language groups), and so comp.* is for English language groups only.

    But I don't see a reason why all the comp.sys.psion.* groups couldn't all be
    renamed back to comp.sys.psion as it was from 1993-7, to go with
    fr.comp.sys.psion. (You could go for comp.sys.handhelds.psion if you wanted
    but maybe that would be too much of a change?)

    There's a small fly in the ointment in that ISPs have got a bit lazy these
    days and sometimes don't pick up creation/deletion messages automatically,
    and so have to be asked to create new groups which aren't already carried.
    This is probably not a problem if everyone uses a big news provider (Google,
    Supernews, individual.net, etc) as they tend to be on the ball, but
    propagation of changes to small ISPs with lazy admins could require a few
    prods on the part of their users. Until this happens there's a small risk
    that a renamed group wouldn't be carried as well as the old one. That might
    lean slightly against comp.sys.psion rather than just keeping everything in
    comp.sys.psion.misc, though in my opinion the former is a better name.

    For a test, try a group that was created earlier this month - see if
    your newsfeed carries comp.internet.services.wiki. If it does then your
    news provider is being awake and a new group should have no trouble.


    Does someone want to take this forward? I'm happy to help out, but I should
    probably leave it to some who inhabits here a bit more as I'm only a lurker.

    The documentation about group removals is here:
    http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php
    For a couple of examples of past RFDs (requests for discussion), see here:
    ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...puter.announce
    ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.an...sys.acorn.misc
    (ignore all the stuff about voting)

    Theo

  8. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Quoting Richard van Stappershoef's message of Yesterday:

    > I agree, but please don't forget the German "de.comp.sys.handhelds.psion" .
    > It is also used frequently!
    > Maybe 2 seperate groups, one for each language?


    The "de." groups are completely separate from the big 8 hierarchy and
    wouldn't be affected by comp.sys.psion.*. There's also a
    fr.comp.sys.psion too, which would likewise be unaffected.

    --
    Damian - http://damian.snigfarp.karoo.net/
    Put "sausage" in the subject of email replies to avoid my spam trap.

  9. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Quoting Theo Markettos's message of Yesterday:

    > There's a small fly in the ointment in that ISPs have got a bit lazy these
    > days and sometimes don't pick up creation/deletion messages automatically,
    > and so have to be asked to create new groups which aren't already carried.


    On my ISP's news server, and on Google I think, comp.sys.psion itself
    still exists. If I remember rightly it has to, for comp.sys.psion.* to
    exist. I think I've seen the occasional stray message in there over the
    past few years too, but I could be wrong.

    > Does someone want to take this forward? I'm happy to help out, but I should
    > probably leave it to some who inhabits here a bit more as I'm only a lurker.


    I'd be happy to if nobody else wants to. But as my experience of news
    admin matters is about seven years out of date I may need your help!
    Over the next day or so I'll check out the links you've given.

    --
    Damian - http://damian.snigfarp.karoo.net/
    Put "sausage" in the subject of email replies to avoid my spam trap.

  10. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Damian Walker wrote:


    >
    > I've been thinking it would be sensible just to have comp.sys.psion as a
    > single group and drop the rest, for the reasons you mentioned in your
    > post. I'd be interested to know if there's any more support for this
    > idea.
    >


    I agree. Good idea.


  11. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Damian Walker wrote:
    > On my ISP's news server, and on Google I think, comp.sys.psion itself
    > still exists. If I remember rightly it has to, for comp.sys.psion.* to
    > exist. I think I've seen the occasional stray message in there over the
    > past few years too, but I could be wrong.


    It doesn't have to exist for csp.* to exist, though it may be your ISP
    doesn't honour delete messages. All groups that ever existed are on Google
    because they maintain an archive, though many of them are marked as
    read-only.

    Looking at http://groupsearch.aacity.net/
    comp.sys.psion is carried by 20 out of 54 servers they check
    comp.sys.psion.misc is carried by 53 of 54 servers
    comp.internet.services.wiki is carried by 29 of 54 servers
    (but there are lots of caveats with this checker)

    > I'd be happy to if nobody else wants to. But as my experience of news
    > admin matters is about seven years out of date I may need your help!
    > Over the next day or so I'll check out the links you've given.


    There's not really anything technical, it's mostly just policy (naming etc).
    I got through comp.arch.hobbyist ten years ago under the old system which
    was hard work, but nowadays if you have a non-contentious proposal it should
    be fairly straightforward. Though I've been reading news.groups and
    n.g.proposals for a while I haven't tried it myself.

    Theo

  12. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Quoting Theo Markettos's message of Yesterday:

    > It doesn't have to exist for csp.* to exist, though it may be your ISP
    > doesn't honour delete messages. All groups that ever existed are on Google
    > because they maintain an archive, though many of them are marked as
    > read-only.


    I checked up those links, and indeed comp.sys.psion isn't in the
    canonical list.

    > There's not really anything technical, it's mostly just policy (naming etc).
    > I got through comp.arch.hobbyist ten years ago under the old system which
    > was hard work, but nowadays if you have a non-contentious proposal it should
    > be fairly straightforward. Though I've been reading news.groups and
    > n.g.proposals for a while I haven't tried it myself.


    Looking at the Big 8 site and the appropriate documentation, it would
    have to be done in two stages: recreation of comp.sys.psion and then
    deletion of the other groups. There's a means of creation and a means
    of deletion, but no means of "reorganisation" or "renaming" or similar.

    I'll look further into it, but if the only practical option is to delete
    everything and keep cspm rather than recreate csp, then I probably won't
    bother. Some of the other groups have had some articles recently, I now
    notice.

    --
    Damian - http://damian.snigfarp.karoo.net/
    Put "sausage" in the subject of email replies to avoid my spam trap.

  13. Re: comp.sys.psion.* reorganisation suggestion?

    Damian Walker wrote:
    > Looking at the Big 8 site and the appropriate documentation, it would
    > have to be done in two stages: recreation of comp.sys.psion and then
    > deletion of the other groups. There's a means of creation and a means
    > of deletion, but no means of "reorganisation" or "renaming" or similar.


    There is a 'rename' - look at the comp.sys.acorn.* proposal I linked to -
    the Call for Votes calls for:
    rename unmoderated group comp.sys.acorn to comp.sys.acorn.misc
    which is what indeed did happen.

    > I'll look further into it, but if the only practical option is to delete
    > everything and keep cspm rather than recreate csp, then I probably won't
    > bother. Some of the other groups have had some articles recently, I now
    > notice.


    It's up to you (collectively) really. If you're happy with things as they
    are then there's no reason to change them.

    Theo

+ Reply to Thread