Re: Vote NO: Comp.databases.oracle.server.java

In article <3514582D.FA5DB912_at_pacific.net.sg>, Phil Bradley <pbradley_at_pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
>stevec_at_zimmer.csufresno.edu wrote:
>>
>> Giving figures on how fast Java is growing and stating how important you think
>> Java will be in the future is NOT a good reason to start a new newsgroup.
>
>So what is a good reason? I would have thought that a subject of widespread
>interest where there is limited knowledge would be a good candidate.
>>
>> A newsgroup should be created if there is a need for the group based on the
>> numbers of articles that would naturally fall within its scope.
>
>So the justification is push. If enough articles get posted on any news group
>that would fall into the scope of the designated news group, then that is the
>justification.

Yes, that's a good way to put it. Most people would also accept e-mail discussion groups as evidence of interest in the subject, provided that a significant number of people using them actually want to switch to a newsgroup. Web-based bulletin boards might also be a possibility, although there hasn't been much experience with them yet (in connection with justifying newsgroups) as far as I know.

Please keep in mind that this "rule" about pre-existing traffic isn't a rule in the sense that it's been imposed from above by the Great Usenet Gods. It's simply a summary of actual experience in creating newsgroups over the years, as observed by people who hang out in news.groups regularly. We serve as the "collective memory" of Usenet. Individual RFD's and proponents come and go, and most of them have no experience with or interest in newsgroup creation except for their own particular proposal. Some of us are "into" newsgroup politics, for whatever reason, and stick around for a long enough time that we see many RFD's go by. We've seen what works and what doesn't.

Over the long haul, our experience has been that the "pull" model (a.k.a. the "if you newgroup it, they will come" model) of newsgroup creation does not usually work. By and large, new newsgroups are successful when they have a base of pre-existing interest to draw upon, from people who are *already* expressing that interest somewhere on the Net: in related newsgroups, mailing lists, or wherever.

One can argue, "that's what the vote is for, isn't it?" Yes, but why go through the trouble of running a vote unless you have some genuine confidence that it has a reasonable chance of succeeding? Over the last several months many votes have failed because of simple lack of interest. Considering that any proposal will draw at least 20-30 NO votes, do you think you have a fighting chance of getting at least 120-130 YES votes from people who are genuinely interested in using the group?

-- 
Jon Bell <jtbell_at_presby.edu>