What does everyone think? I was reading: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
What does everyone think? I was reading: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
What does everyone think? I was reading: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
Greetings.
On 30/03/2022 15.46, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of
modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check
everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
What does everyone think? I was reading:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
I have no opinion on the group you're proposing but just wanted to point
out that your thread has attracted a reply in the unmoderated
counterpart of this group, news.groups: <news:t24aij$kpu$1@dont-email.me>.
Regards,
Tristan
Is that good or bad? O_O
Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
What does everyone think? I was reading: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
Happy Hacking.
Greetings.
On 01/04/2022 00.09, rek2 hispagatos wrote:
Is that good or bad? O_O
It's bad only insofar as the discussion is now split over two different (albeit appropriate) groups. But as far as bad things go, it's not so serious. I mentioned it here only to draw attention to it, in case you
and other readers of this thread hadn't noticed it.
Regards,
Tristan
Hello, I'm back using and supporting USENET strong, but notice a lack of modern topics, I am glad gemini protocol got added, I enjoy it and check everyday, very excited, but when it comes to computer languages, I am
active on C but is lacking GO, RUST etc... specially I am bias I will
love a GO group where I share my finds and have conversations with other
GO programmers specially if they are into cybersecurity.
What does everyone think? I was reading: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
and it ask to start an "informal" discussion so here I am.
Happy Hacking.
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
In article <t2qr6t$qmm$1@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
It may be worth seeing if the thread in comp.lang.misc provides any more support for the idea. You could also ask in other Go discussion forums
to see if anyone there would use a Go newsgroup. The more supporters you
can find, the better--it will be more obvious that the group should be created, and when it is, it will have more lively and interesting discussions.
When you think there's enough support to make the group worthwhile, you
can post a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) as described in the link
from your original post: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
I'd suggest that such a group should be unmoderated--moderators becoming unavailable seems to cause bigger problems these days than things like
spam or off-topic posting.
Kind regards,
R
Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.
On 4/11/22 3:25 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid says...
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
It may be worth seeing if the thread in comp.lang.misc provides any more >>support for the idea. You could also ask in other Go discussion forums
to see if anyone there would use a Go newsgroup. The more supporters you >>can find, the better--it will be more obvious that the group should be >>created, and when it is, it will have more lively and interesting >>discussions.
When you think there's enough support to make the group worthwhile, you
can post a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) as described in the link >>from your original post: >>https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
I'd suggest that such a group should be unmoderated--moderators becoming >>unavailable seems to cause bigger problems these days than things like
spam or off-topic posting.
Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.
It's been more than a year. Has anyone posted to Usenet on the topic?
In article <u6m01p$1ilrg$3@dont-email.me>, a_cat@example.com says...
Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.
People in this thread were supportive of the idea, so the next step is
for someone to write a Request For Discussion that formally proposes the
new group. This proposal can then be revised if necessary based on
people's feedback. Once a final version is reached, the Board can either create the group or not depending on whether it still looks like there's
a demand for it.
The group proposal process is described here: https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
And there's an RFD template here (see section 2):
https://www.big- 8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
The RFD should be crossposted to news.groups.proposals, news.announce.newgroups, and any other groups that are likely to contain people interested in the proposed group. comp.lang.misc seems likely to
be one such group; there may be others. Followups should be set to news.groups.proposals.
So, who wants to step up and write the proposal?
Best regards,
Rayner
I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
tell me next steps or where to do anything :(
HappyHacking
On 2023-06-18, a cat <a_cat@example.com> wrote:
On 4/11/22 3:25 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
In article <t2qr6t$qmm$1@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
It may be worth seeing if the thread in comp.lang.misc provides any more >>> support for the idea. You could also ask in other Go discussion forums
to see if anyone there would use a Go newsgroup. The more supporters you >>> can find, the better--it will be more obvious that the group should be
created, and when it is, it will have more lively and interesting
discussions.
When you think there's enough support to make the group worthwhile, you
can post a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) as described in the link
from your original post:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
I'd suggest that such a group should be unmoderated--moderators becoming >>> unavailable seems to cause bigger problems these days than things like
spam or off-topic posting.
Kind regards,
R
Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.
On 4/11/22 3:25 PM, Rayner Lucas wrote:
In article <t2qr6t$qmm$1@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...
Hello everyone,
So we got some support with replys, what is the next step for this?
It may be worth seeing if the thread in comp.lang.misc provides any more
support for the idea. You could also ask in other Go discussion forums
to see if anyone there would use a Go newsgroup. The more supporters you
can find, the better--it will be more obvious that the group should be
created, and when it is, it will have more lively and interesting
discussions.
When you think there's enough support to make the group worthwhile, you
can post a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) as described in the link
from your original post:
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
I'd suggest that such a group should be unmoderated--moderators becoming
unavailable seems to cause bigger problems these days than things like
spam or off-topic posting.
Kind regards,
R
Is there a way to determine the result of this conversation? I would
also like such a group.
I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
tell me next steps or where to do anything :(
In article <u7s2d7$3bdfg$4@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid says...
I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
tell me next steps or where to do anything :(
The next step is in the link from your original post. You need section 2 (Request for Discussion):
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
There is an RFD template here (see the section "A Newsgroup Creation RFD Template"):
https://www.big- 8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
You should crosspost the RFD to the following groups:
- news.announce.newgroups
- news.groups.proposals
- any other newsgroups where there are people who are likely to be
interested in the proposed group.
Set followups to news.groups.proposals (if you do not know how to do
this in your newsreader software, please ask).
People can then reply in news.groups.proposals to support or oppose the
new group, or to offer feedback on the proposal.
Regards,
Rayner
Hello Rayner, thanks for the reply,
I am almost sure we already did that stage? maybe not, it was around
this time last year or so, I remember I gived up because I got busy and
was confused on the next steps after posting it to diff groups and
getting good replies.
Will double check, I will also like to add a rust programming group not
just GO. so will take some time to read again and start over if that
makes more sense at this stage?
If anyone will like to help me with GO/RUST please let me know please.
In article <u7ulg6$3ne7p$2@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid says...
Hello Rayner, thanks for the reply,
I am almost sure we already did that stage? maybe not, it was around
this time last year or so, I remember I gived up because I got busy and
was confused on the next steps after posting it to diff groups and
getting good replies.
Will double check, I will also like to add a rust programming group not
just GO. so will take some time to read again and start over if that
makes more sense at this stage?
If anyone will like to help me with GO/RUST please let me know please.
There were threads here and in news.groups about the possibility of
starting a Go newsgroup (the "informal discussion" stage), but as far as
I can see nobody wrote an RFD.
So your next steps are:
1. Write the RFD.
2. Post it (crosspost to relevant groups and set followups to here).
3. Get people who want a Go newsgroup to reply in support of it.
Step 3 is important: it needs to be clear that a new group will have
enough participants to be useful.
Regards,
Rayner
Rayner Lucas <usenet202101@magic-cookie.co.ukNOSPAMPLEASE> writes:
In article <u7ulg6$3ne7p$2@dont-email.me>, rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid
says...
Hello Rayner, thanks for the reply,
I am almost sure we already did that stage? maybe not, it was around
this time last year or so, I remember I gived up because I got busy and
was confused on the next steps after posting it to diff groups and
getting good replies.
Will double check, I will also like to add a rust programming group not
just GO. so will take some time to read again and start over if that
makes more sense at this stage?
If anyone will like to help me with GO/RUST please let me know please.
There were threads here and in news.groups about the possibility of
starting a Go newsgroup (the "informal discussion" stage), but as far as
I can see nobody wrote an RFD.
So your next steps are:
1. Write the RFD.
2. Post it (crosspost to relevant groups and set followups to here).
3. Get people who want a Go newsgroup to reply in support of it.
Step 3 is important: it needs to be clear that a new group will have
enough participants to be useful.
Regards,
Rayner
I also recommend styling it correctly as "Go", not "GO", in the RFD.
I am interested in a Go group myself, so feel free to bounce a draft RFD
off me if you wish.
john
Hello, sorry, just saw this.
I just submitted a RFD is waiting for approval to get it posted,
will be glad to get some help specially because
my first language is Spanish and I am not living in the US any more so
have a lack of practice on my English :D
yes def Go will look better than GO :) if I added GO we should def
change that for RFD 2.
Happy Hacking
In article <u7s2d7$3bdfg$4@dont-email.me>,
rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid says...
I was the original poster, I got ton of support but never had anyone
tell me next steps or where to do anything :(
The next step is in the link from your original post. You need
section 2 (Request for Discussion):
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup
There is an RFD template here (see the section "A Newsgroup Creation
RFD Template"):
https://www.big- 8.org/wiki/Content_and_Format_of_a_Request_for_Discussion_(RFD)
You should crosspost the RFD to the following groups:
- news.announce.newgroups
- news.groups.proposals
- any other newsgroups where there are people who are likely to be
interested in the proposed group.
Set followups to news.groups.proposals (if you do not know how to do
this in your newsreader software, please ask).
People can then reply in news.groups.proposals to support or oppose
the new group, or to offer feedback on the proposal.
Regards,
Rayner
ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
interaction.
If you are worried about a spammer mounting a flood attack with group creation, build a proof-of-work verification into the protocol
extension
For heaven's sake, just create the group. It's not like people are
asking for new groups every day.
Aside from mentally deranged trolls, psyop spam, and warez and movie
pirates, there's approximately six or seven dozen dedicated users of
the whole Usenet. This bureaucracy is unnecessary in the current circumstance.
Here comes a brain tornado:
The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...
user.*
ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
interaction.
If you are worried about a spammer mounting a flood attack with group creation, build a proof-of-work verification into the protocol
extension and require 3 or 5 peers in good standing to approve for
the proposed group to propagate automatically.
The person holding the user group key can sign sub-moderator keys for
message moderation and revoke them at will. Then we'd never need to see another RFD again, except for the news.* hierarchy for system
administration stuff. Moderation would be strictly by signature with no
email forwarding necessary. If a valid signature command propagates,
then it shall be done as the signature commandeth.
This old way of doing things made sense back in the days of 9600 baud
dialup and UUCP. It serves no real purpose now. A $100/yr. VPS can
handle an entire text Usenet feed with a 3-5 year history. Who cares if
there are another 50 or 100 thousand orphan groups created by users?
The file to list them would take at most 4-6 MB of disk space. The list
can be auto-pruned after a period of inactivity. The protocol extension
could serve the groups list by query keyword or 3+ char substring
instead of the whole list at once.
Administrators can decide whether or not to allow such feeds on their
servers or whether they deal with the extension at all.
IMHO torturing these poor users with endless back and forth about
arcane and ancient bureaucracy just to create a group is just a
technocratic form of digital child abuse at the hands of hippie boomer
geeks. The procedural response is no longer proportionate to the
situation or the current technology.
For heaven's sake, just create the group. It's not like people are
asking for new groups every day.
Aside from mentally deranged trolls, psyop spam, and warez and movie
pirates, there's approximately six or seven dozen dedicated users of
the whole Usenet. This bureaucracy is unnecessary in the current circumstance.
Here comes a brain tornado:
The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...
user.*
ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
interaction.
Syber Shock <admin@sybershock.com> writes:
The Usenet 'kumoonitay' could add a new, user-managed hierarchy, aptly
named ... da dunt dunt dunt ...
user.*
ISC could add an extension to the NNTP protocol that allows clients to
Who cares if there are another 50 or 100 thousand orphan groups created by users?
create user-managed groups in the new user.* hierarchy. The
client-moderator creates the group with a cryptographic signature key
and it is all automated with no need of human or administrator
interaction.
Deployment would take a while.
In the meantime there’s alt.*, or free.* if you want to create groups
with zero process.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 74:54:23 |
| Calls: | 6,695 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,347,074 |
| Posted today: | 2 |