I'll throw in a caveat too: I'm not familiar with the us.* hierarchy
in particular. I've heard it's run similar to can.*, so I'll use that
as an example. This is coming from a news.groups-type perspective, too,
rather than that of a FAQ maintainer (which is something I only do
locally).
> Can someone explain to me if the duplication of newsgroups is allowed?
More like "expected", of late. There's more than a few Big-8 groups that
have an alt.* equivalent, plus equivalents in local hierarchies.
> It appears that someone has proposed a new unmoderated newsgroup in the
> new "us.*" hierarchy that essentially will duplicate the newsgroup I now
> hold FAQ on in the "rec" hierarchy.
It'll have the same topic, perhaps, but not duplicate. While a group
such as rec.boats might have crossover traffic with can.rec.boating,
the latter is oriented towards boating *to do with Canada*, while
the former is international in scope.
> The impetus for this seems to be escapism from spam, off topic postings,
> diametrically opposed points of view (that often leads to flaming, etc).
> In otherwords, Usenet norms.
That's a rare reason to move to a hierarchy like us.*; usually, one would
create a moderated group. Perhaps the proponents want to limit discussion
to US-related topics? (I don't know what the group is, so I'm speculating.)
> It also appears that there was no rule that said they had to consider
> posting an RFD to my newsgroup even though we'd be most effected by this.
This is correct; different hierarchies have nothing to do with each other,
especially local ones. The Big-8, alt.*, and local hierarchies are entirely
different worlds.
> There is also no system of voting procedure as far as I can see - or so
> they tell me in us.config. Essentially of there is no outpouring of
> opposition, the group will be formed based on the proposal alone.
> However, if no one knows about it in the newsgroup I FAQ-file for, how
> can there be?
Because there are people in the us.* hierarchy that watch over the process,
similar to my or Chris Lewis' participation in can.config, or a whole
bunch in alt.config, who put time and effort into making sure the
hierarchy is well-managed.
> Have I missed some logic here?
I think the problem is that you're associating the group which you
maintain a FAQ for (which I suspect is in a Big-8 hierarchy, or at least
alt.*) and the local-hierarchy group, when that association only exists
in name or topic. In particular, your group seems to be one that will
have a lot of specifically regional-based discussion.
> And of course there would be a new FAQ file and FAQ author to boot (group
> proponent). And I can easily guess that it will lead to a lot of cross
> posting because it will essentially be a duplication of what exists now.
Surprisingly, this doesn't happen that often; nonabusive posters realize
that one group is international and the other regional in scope, and post
accordingly depending on content. (At least can.* posters do.)
> Personally I think this is delusional as no unmoderated newsgroup is
> totally free of spam and its only a matter of time before a new hierarchy
> is hit.
>
> So where am I wrong. Please advise. I openly confess my ignorance of
> this procedure.
Well, first off, I'd think you should be talking about this in us.config,
instead of on FAQ-Maintainers, inasmuch as it's an argument against the
creation of this new group, rather than something to do with, well, FAQ
maintaining.
Discussion of hierarchies and cross-hierarchy workings belongs in
news.admin.hierarches; discussion re this us.* group belong in us.config.
(As an aside, I'd read over whatever FAQs are available for us.*
creation before taking on Henrietta Thomas..)
Hope this helps,
-Rich, news.groupie at large :-)
-- Rich Lafferty --------------------------------------------------------- IITS/Computing Services | "How should I know if it works? That's what Concordia University | beta testers are for. I only coded it" -LT rich@alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------------------------[McQ]--
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved