Call For Votes (CFV): aus.food

Ausadmin <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snippage throughout]

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

A reminder: Creation of new newsgroups does not happen in a vacuum -
other newsgroups may well be affected, rec.food.cooking in this
particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may
be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very
slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the
creation of any such new newsgroup and the only reason to the contrary
that is still better is statistical evidence of enough interest in
recent years in the proposed topic to sustain the new newsgroup.

Some people may ask why such an evidence is important if there is to be
a vote which will show actual interest in the new group. The answer is
of course that the vote shows only the current interest, a moment's
snapshot, which may be influenced by many irrelevant factors. The
statistical evidence of long-term interest supplements the current one.

Come to think of it, why go through the motions of holding a vote at
all, then? Just create the bloody newsgroup and if people want to use
it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
one would be perfectly adequate.

Quoted message said:

Other newsgroups that discuss food are completly oriented towards
every other country except Australia.

This part of the rationale is not just misleading - it is untrue.
rec.food.cooking is a global newsgroup and is oriented towards any
country that happens to be discussed at any one point. This has been
pointed to the proponent early in the course of the RFD discussion.
Nothing happened, of course.

Victor

[aus.net.news removed]
Victor Sack <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[snip]

Quoted message said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to
provide an estimate of expected traffic for the proposed
newsgroup and the current traffic on the net related to this
topic,

[snip]

Which is enough reason to vote no for this proposal.

When someone votes no, then the yes votes require an even greater number
of yes votes. This can be very tough on a 'group with a finite
following. If the vote doesn't meet (and I'm blanking on the actual
percentage but it's huge) the hierarchy's requirement, the proposed
'group doesn't get the necessary permissions. But... People have to
vote. (Even abstaining is a strike against the formation of a new
'group.)

The Ranger

[email hidden] said...
|| other newsgroups may well be affected, rec.food.cooking in this
|| particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may
|| be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very
|| slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the
|| creation of any such new newsgroup and the only reason to the contrary
|| that is still better is statistical evidence of enough interest in
|| recent years in the proposed topic to sustain the new newsgroup.
||
||
Victor, I am a little confused.

Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful?

I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads
in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group
would have on you.

As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on
Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see
they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation.
--

fini.

[posting from aus.net.news]

Victor Sack said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian

ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
probably in the pre-RFD period.

Quoted message said:

reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*

I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
should come up.

Quoted message said:

particular case. There is little doubt that some valuable traffic may
be potentially diverted from rfc, thus damaging it, if only very
slightly. This, in itself, is a good enough reason to oppose the

If it's "very slightly" then it doesn't sound like that big an issue.
Though that remains a valid point.

Quoted message said:

it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
one would be perfectly adequate.

Now that's just insulting. I've been active in both regional
and international newsgroups over the years though little of
either these days. Sometimes both on the same topic, simply
because of the different flavour of a local group vs an
international perspective. I used to hang out in news.groups
several years ago and aus.net.news for many years, and a.n.n
is much, more relaxed than n.g but then the number of posts
is orders of magnitude lower. That doesn't mean newsgroups
in aus.* should be created [censored] nilly, however there has
been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems
to have a fair bit of support.
--
snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.

(Victor Sack) said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own
merit, inadequate or not.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.

(Victor Sack) said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own
merit, inadequate or not.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.

(Victor Sack) said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own
merit, inadequate or not.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.

augie said:

Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful?

This is a distinct possibility, if only a very occasional one. Why do
you ask?

Quoted message said:

I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads
in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group
would have on you.

Why is it my person that is important here? I care, first and foremost
about the rec.food.cooking as a whole, not necessarily my person. FWIW,
I do respond to Australian posters and threads whenever I see fit... no
difference to any other nationality, including my own.

Quoted message said:

As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on
Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see
they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation.

You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
quite considerably.

Victor

augie said:

Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful?

This is a distinct possibility, if only a very occasional one. Why do
you ask?

Quoted message said:

I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads
in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group
would have on you.

Why is it my person that is important here? I care, first and foremost
about the rec.food.cooking as a whole, not necessarily my person. FWIW,
I do respond to Australian posters and threads whenever I see fit... no
difference to any other nationality, including my own.

Quoted message said:

As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on
Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see
they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation.

You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
quite considerably.

Victor

augie said:

Do you plan to join in on aus.food, if the proposal is successful?

This is a distinct possibility, if only a very occasional one. Why do
you ask?

Quoted message said:

I rarely see you contribute to Australian posters or Australian threads
in RFC, so cannot fathom what type of negative impact the new group
would have on you.

Why is it my person that is important here? I care, first and foremost
about the rec.food.cooking as a whole, not necessarily my person. FWIW,
I do respond to Australian posters and threads whenever I see fit... no
difference to any other nationality, including my own.

Quoted message said:

As for the impact on RFC, surely only the people who are active on
Australian threads would notice the difference - and from what I can see
they are the ones who are positive about it's implementation.

You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
quite considerably.

Victor

snail said:

Victor Sack said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian

ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
probably in the pre-RFD period.

*Please* post the evidence!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*

I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
should come up.

*Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands.

Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical
evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care
of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there
are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite
another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
one would be perfectly adequate.

Now that's just insulting.

Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting
wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.*
and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards
of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the
viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.*
effectively equivalent to the alt.*

I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.*
hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on
this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not
just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view.
Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people
who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want
now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern?
Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking...

FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I
imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people
are prevented from having what they want for the eternity.

Quoted message said:

That doesn't mean newsgroups
in aus.* should be created [censored] nilly, however there has
been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems
to have a fair bit of support.

What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
see - and it was totally ignored.

Victor

Nick Andrew said:

(Victor Sack) said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
in the voting phase now.

Eh, I posted what was effectively the very same thing, more than once
even, even quoting parts of the aus.* FAQ, *during the RFD discussion* -
and nothing happened.

Quoted message said:

The proposal now stands or falls on its own
merit, inadequate or not.

That is obvious enough about *now*. What about *before*?

Victor

Nick Andrew said:

(Victor Sack) said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian
perspective. This is a standard, even elementary, request and the
reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*
hierarchy? If so, shouldn't the pertinent parts be deleted from the FAQ
as no longer relevant?

No, you're just too late. We've moved on from the RFD already, and are
in the voting phase now. The proposal now stands or falls on its own
merit, inadequate or not.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.

This would appear to support Victor's and the Ranger's points and
suggest to non-Ozzian RFC members that if they wish to keep reading
postings related to OZ in the same forum as they read postings related
to most other cookings rather than in some inadequately described and
discussed forum it is in their interest to vote AGAINST the creation of
this group.

-bwg

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:53:27 +0200, [email hidden] (Victor

Sack) said:

What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
see - and it was totally ignored.

That is to say, you didn't get your way.

A lack of affirmation is not indicative of being ignored.

I didn't ignore you, for one. I read all that you wrote. I disagree
with most of what you wrote. As plainly do others.

--
Craig

[email hidden] said...
|| What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
|| see - and it was totally ignored.

I read your post, I read all posts related to the matter, but only
comment on those warranted.

I am sure your singular criticism has been noted by whomever it is that
does so.

--

fini.

[email hidden] said...
|| What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
|| see - and it was totally ignored.

I read your post, I read all posts related to the matter, but only
comment on those warranted.

I am sure your singular criticism has been noted by whomever it is that
does so.

--

fini.

"Victor Sack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

augie <[email hidden]> wrote:

..

Quoted message said:

You are very much mistaken here - every difference matters, if only a
bit, and when those differences add up, the whole newsgroup changes
quite considerably.

Victor

sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is
all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are
forever. change happens.

it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on
rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a
difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters
still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup
would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's
behaviour like that.

i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters
that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been
interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking
about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting.

and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there
are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited
rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people
all have no right to have a newsgroup they want?

i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup
slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of
people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but
i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how
many food related posts there are!)

i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether
aus.food happens or not.

--
elizabeth (in australia)
DS 20th august 2002
#2 due 14th october 2005 (currently: 35 weeks)

"Worry is like a rocking chair--it gives you something to do but it doesn't
get you anywhere." -- Anonymous

Victor Sack said:

snail said:

Victor Sack said:

I notice that there has been no reaction to my request to provide an
estimate of expected traffic for the proposed newsgroup and the current
traffic on the net related to this topic, i.e. food from an Australian

ISTR some discussion, and stats quotage, a couple of months ago,
probably in the pre-RFD period.

*Please* post the evidence!

How about you google aus.net.news yourself ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reasons for it are well explained in the aus.* FAQ. Yet no estimate has
been forthcoming. Is this no longer of any importance in the aus.*

I don't have time to google at the moment, but some some references
should come up.

*Post* them, please, or ask someone else with more time on his hands.

I just asked you 🙂 Anyway I just had a brief look through
and found plenty of discussion, checked a few posts at random,
but didn't find stats. Using keywords like postings, statistics,
and a couple of others.

I'm posting here as a denizen of aus.net.news. I'm vaguely interested
in whether this group gets up or not, as previous attempts over the
years have failed. This time round there seems to be a lot more
folk interested; certainly there's been a lot more folk posting this
time round which is at least indicative that the group might be used.

Quoted message said:

Really, I would like nothing better than to see some honest statistical
evidence of real interest over the recent years. That would take care

There were previous attempts to create groups in 2000 and 2001 I think.
Let's see, how about the old CFV results:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/browse_thread/thread/d9c295cdd3547900/4f4deab752abe0de?lnk=st&q=aus.net.news+gourmand&rnum=6#4f4deab752abe0de

previous dicussion of older RFDs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=aus.net.news+gourmand

oooh, forgot about my attempt in 2003 which is referred to in
discussion back in May:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.net.news/browse_thread/thread/2049c94befbac78a/6bbf0c6d73013ff6?lnk=st&q=aus.net.news+gourmand&rnum=3#6bbf0c6d73013ff6

Crikey, I forgot my own proposal, I knew I was having a bad week
but this is silly.

Quoted message said:

of the whole problem, as far as I'm concerned. It is one thing if there
are, say, at least five posts a day on the relevant topics, and quite
another if there are perhaps only a couple posts per month.

That I agree with you on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it, they will. What's the use of the aus.* hierarchy at all? The alt.*
one would be perfectly adequate.

Now that's just insulting.

Well, it was meant to be more facetious than insulting, but insulting
wouldn't be at all out of place, either. The difference between alt.*

*grin* Either way it was a bit of a [censored].

Quoted message said:

and aus.* (and other ostensibly "serious" hierarchies) is some standards

Well that's one of the differences, another is that alt is a
global hyraky ( 🙂 ) where as aus.*, uk.* are country based;
or melb.* syd.* which are city based. Another example is film.
There's plenty of good international discussion groups for film
but aus.film is needed simply because of differing release
schedules and a place for locals to hang.

Quoted message said:

of new group creation. One of these standards, evidence of the
viability of the new group, is lacking in this case, making the aus.*
effectively equivalent to the alt.*

[censored]. Honest 🙂 Even if that one standard were lacking, it's
still not even close to reducing aus.* to the standards of alt.*

Quoted message said:

I would say that anyone with even a bit of respect to the aus.*
hierarchy, or at least to what it is supposed to be, ought to vote NO on
this proposal, if only out of principle. The whole thing is really not
just about this one proposed newsgroup - one has to take a larger view.

Nope, my main interest these days is in local groups. I choose
not to take a big 8 view. r.f.c seems a big, happy group but
for me the effect on that group seems minor and not especially
relevant. There'll still be some Oz posters there, and there
may well be room for a local group too.

Quoted message said:

Is this all only about the instant-gratification, me-generation people
who demand the new group *now!* because that's what a few of them *want
now!*, or is the whole aus.* thing perhaps worthy of some more concern?

No now about it, food proposals in aus.* have come up several
times before and failed and may well fail again, or succeed.

Quoted message said:

Just asking... in this case *my* concern is mostly rec.food.cooking...

Your concern is fair enough for you; I don't see why "one has to
take a larger view". That's your stance not mine.

Quoted message said:

FWIW, another, better, proposal can be made in a few months time, I
imagine, if this one fails for some reason. It is not as though people
are prevented from having what they want for the eternity.

Well, it's been about 5 years since it was first proposed and it
still hasn't got up. Maybe folk will have to wait an eternity 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That doesn't mean newsgroups
in aus.* should be created [censored] nilly, however there has
been quite a bit of a discussion on this proposal and seems
to have a fair bit of support.

Quoted message said:

What discussion? Mine was the only criticism at all, as far as I can
see - and it was totally ignored.

Go back a couple of months...probably April/May and there's been
a bunch of food related postings in a.n.n in that time too.
--
snail @ smacktard net http://snail.ws/
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.

arachne said:

sorry to get all philosophical, but isn't that what life (& newsgroups) is
all about? - change. everything changes. we can't keep things how they are
forever. change happens.

Why get so fatalistic? People are in control of a lot of things that
happen to them and creation - or not - of newsgroups is one of them.

Quoted message said:

it seems like there is only a small percentage of australian posters on
rec.food.cooking compared to other countries. i know you say that makes a
difference. but what if aus.food was denied and these australian posters
still decided all to unsubscribe or just lurk? the flavour of the newsgroup
would still change. it's just not possible to control other people's
behaviour like that.

It is possible to control one's own behaviour, though. And, why assume
Australian posters are particularly stupid and will cut into their own
flesh just out of spite?

Quoted message said:

i know from my own unrelated newsgroup (aus.family) that many of the posters
that would come to aus.food would be from aus.family. we have been
interested in this for ages & would love a separate newsgroup for talking
about food rather than on aus.family which is technically about parenting.

Good, simply great! Who are those posters? How many of them? How many
posting on the matter have appeared over the recent years? They could
be a part of statistics that would show some evidence of enough interest
to sustain the new newsgroup. Otherwise it is just empty talk, I'm
afraid.

Quoted message said:

and this is not the only place that people wanting aus.food come from. there
are many people in australian newsgroups that have never, ever visited
rec.food.cooking which want aus.food. are you suggesting that these people
all have no right to have a newsgroup they want?

No one has a right to a newsgroup. What you get to read is ultimately
decided by the newsadmins of ISPs and independent newsservers. Those
newsadmins pay attention to "serious" hierarchies and control messages
coming from approved sources precisely because they assume that new
newsgroups are created in a serious fashion, and are not just based on
hearsay or proclamations of nonexistent rights.

Quoted message said:

i think this extends beyond the boundaries of changing one newsgroup
slightly. it is what a sizeable (to our little country, anyway) number of
people would like to see happen. (i know you keep asking for statistics, but
i have no idea on how to do that! but you could google aus.family to see how
many food related posts there are!)

Well, I answered that question, twice even, I believe. It has always
been the job of the proponents and, if they don't know how, they ought
to find someone who does. I even suggested David Formosa, thinking that
even if he can't help personally, he can possibly point to someone who
can. Has anyone asked him?

Quoted message said:

i hope you still find rec.food.cooking an enjoyable place to go, whether
aus.food happens or not.

I hope so, too. And I also hope that, if aus.food does happen, it will
be an enjoyable place to visit, too. I'm not going to sulk, unlike
those hypothetical Australians of whom you apparently have such a low
opinion. :-)

Victor