Newsgroups and "Charters"

http://www.learnthenet.com/english/html/29start.htm


If you are interested in starting a newsgroup, don't try it alone the
first time around. Find someone who has been through the process before.
Many arcane customs and rules have sprung up around creating new
newsgroups.
Let's say you are a cactus aficionado and want to start a newsgroup at
rec.gardens.cactus. The process you would go through is as follows:
A formal Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted to
news.announce.newgroup and any other newsgroups related to the topic.
Interested people will discuss the name of the group, where it should go
in the hierarchy, and whether your group is really necessary. If there
is no agreement on these issues at the end of 30 days, the discussion
will be taken to e-mail, where the idea may eventually be killed, or the
participant will come back with a new proposal and make a new Request
for Discussion.
Once the name, place, and purpose of the group are decided, a Call for
Votes CFV) is posted to news.announce.newsgroups and other related
groups. The voting period will be more than 20 days, but less than 30.
Votes are sent via e-mail to a list moderator.
At the end of the voting period, the results are posted to
news.announce.newsgroup.
A mandatory five day waiting period after the vote is posted allows for
correction of any errors in or discussion of the vote count.
If there are no serious objections and if there were 100 more "yes"
votes than "no" votes, and if at least two-thirds of the total number of
votes were "yes" votes, the group will be created, and the moderator
will send out an announcement.
If the proposal fails, a new RFD can be proposed after a six month
waiting period and the whole process begins again.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

---

› See More: Newsgroups and "Charters"

"Kurt" wrote:
>
> Let's say you are a cactus aficionado and want to start a newsgroup at
> rec.gardens.cactus. The process you would go through is as follows:
> A formal Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted to
> news.announce.newgroup and any other newsgroups related to the topic.

That "article" is referring to Big 8 newsgroup creation, not an Alt group
like this one. Alt groups have no such centralized control and can be
created by just about anyone. You just need to get news admins to carry it.

The informal equivalent to news.announce.newgroups in the alt.* hierarchy is
alt.config. Take a look at the difference in message content between it and
news.announce.newgroups and you'll get an idea of just how different things
are in the alt.* universe.

Navas posted his first proposal message to alt.config and alt.cellular.gsm
on 9/17/01. Ironically in response to someone concerned about using a
company name in the newsgroup name Navas replied:
"Again, I respectfully disagree -- while names have changed, principally due
to mergers, names of mega-carriers like Cingular can be expected to
be relatively stable."

Now *that's* funny! But he gets better:
"Voicestream would now seem to be set for the long haul, and I think Nextel
is a reasonably good bet. Regardless, Cingular is in a different
class."

Trust me, you can't make this **** up. Google it.



--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>, Kurt
<[email protected]> wrote:

> If you are interested in starting a newsgroup, don't try it alone the
> first time around. Find someone who has been through the process before.
> Many arcane customs and rules have sprung up around creating new
> newsgroups.

That article describes what used to be how to start a Big-8 newsgroup,
not how to start an alt. newsgroup. Starting an alt. group is easier
than a Big 8 group. However starting a Big 8 newsgroup has been changed
and is easier than the old rules you posted.

http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...cies:proposals

--
Charles

Tinman wrote:
> "Kurt" wrote:
>> Let's say you are a cactus aficionado and want to start a newsgroup at
>> rec.gardens.cactus. The process you would go through is as follows:
>> A formal Request for Discussion (RFD) is posted to
>> news.announce.newgroup and any other newsgroups related to the topic.
>
> That "article" is referring to Big 8 newsgroup creation, not an Alt group
> like this one. Alt groups have no such centralized control and can be
> created by just about anyone. You just need to get news admins to carry it.
>
> The informal equivalent to news.announce.newgroups in the alt.* hierarchy is
> alt.config. Take a look at the difference in message content between it and
> news.announce.newgroups and you'll get an idea of just how different things
> are in the alt.* universe.
>
> Navas posted his first proposal message to alt.config and alt.cellular.gsm
> on 9/17/01. Ironically in response to someone concerned about using a
> company name in the newsgroup name Navas replied:
> "Again, I respectfully disagree -- while names have changed, principally due
> to mergers, names of mega-carriers like Cingular can be expected to
> be relatively stable."
>
> Now *that's* funny! But he gets better:
> "Voicestream would now seem to be set for the long haul, and I think Nextel
> is a reasonably good bet. Regardless, Cingular is in a different
> class."
>
> Trust me, you can't make this **** up. Google it.

Very funny.

In any case, I don't think that it's such a big deal. When name changes
occur, you create a new group. This is what happened with Voicestream to
T-Mobile.

For Wireless from AT&T, alt.cellular.attws is already created. I know it
was originally for the old AT&T Wireless, but that's really no problem.

When you want to go to the former Cingular web site you can use:

"http://www.wireless.att.com"

or

"http://att.com/wireless"

So alt.cellular.attws is a very good match. Maybe it could be just
alt.cellular.att, if anyone wanted to create a new group, but it's
really not necessary.

The lack of a charter is not an issue. A charter isn't required. Usually
it's not a problem to have one, but for alt.cellular.cingular, it's led
to a great deal of newsgroup clutter as Navas posts it so often. One of
the advantages of the existing attws newsgroup is that there is no
charter, so maybe we'll just have to read about Motorola chargers every
few days, at least for those that haven't kill-filed Navas!

"The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers will
have trouble telling which is the nut."



[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:25:28 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>"The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers will
>have trouble telling which is the nut."

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
>away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
>AT&T's Wireless Service.]

Not true.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

Tinman wrote:

<snip>

> Now *that's* funny! But he gets better:
> "Voicestream would now seem to be set for the long haul, and I think Nextel
> is a reasonably good bet. Regardless, Cingular is in a different
> class."
>
> Trust me, you can't make this **** up. Google it.

A year ago I wrote:

"It's as if he's terrified that when (and if) the Cingular name is
dropped, that Usenet readers and posters will migrate to the old
alt.cellular.attws, a group that doesn't have a charter written by him.
So he's desperately trying to extend the alt.cellular.cingular charter
onto alt.cellular.attws (at least that's the only explanation anyone's
come up with for why he's posting a charter into a group that it doesn't
apply to)."

Now the migration is happening, and he's increased his spamming.


[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:51:05 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Tinman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Now *that's* funny! But he gets better:
>> "Voicestream would now seem to be set for the long haul, and I think Nextel
>> is a reasonably good bet. Regardless, Cingular is in a different
>> class."
>>
>> Trust me, you can't make this **** up. Google it.
>
>A year ago I wrote:
>
>"It's as if he's terrified that when (and if) the Cingular name is
>dropped, that Usenet readers and posters will migrate to the old
>alt.cellular.attws, a group that doesn't have a charter written by him.
>So he's desperately trying to extend the alt.cellular.cingular charter
>onto alt.cellular.attws (at least that's the only explanation anyone's
>come up with for why he's posting a charter into a group that it doesn't
>apply to)."
>
>Now the migration is happening, and he's increased his spamming.

Wrong on both counts.

What's increasing is your attempts to disrupt these newsgroups and to
run down AT&T/Cingular, increasingly desperate as more and more of your
forecasts are shown to be nonsense.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

In article <170720070606417023%[email protected]>,
Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Kurt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If you are interested in starting a newsgroup, don't try it alone the
> > first time around. Find someone who has been through the process before.
> > Many arcane customs and rules have sprung up around creating new
> > newsgroups.
>
> That article describes what used to be how to start a Big-8 newsgroup,
> not how to start an alt. newsgroup. Starting an alt. group is easier
> than a Big 8 group. However starting a Big 8 newsgroup has been changed
> and is easier than the old rules you posted.
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...cies:proposals

Thanks for clarifying. This was one of the top organic Google listings
for "starting a newsgroup"
Just pulled it off for the sake of point of reference.

No word about charters in any of them. It's obviously not rocket science
to start one or get one "approved"

Case in point are the thousands of nonsense alt. groups that are still
listed after all these years.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:06:41 -0400, Charles
<[email protected]> wrote in
<170720070606417023%[email protected]>:

>In article <[email protected]>, Kurt
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you are interested in starting a newsgroup, don't try it alone the
>> first time around. Find someone who has been through the process before.
>> Many arcane customs and rules have sprung up around creating new
>> newsgroups.
>
>That article describes what used to be how to start a Big-8 newsgroup,
>not how to start an alt. newsgroup. Starting an alt. group is easier
>than a Big 8 group. However starting a Big 8 newsgroup has been changed
>and is easier than the old rules you posted.
>
>http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...cies:proposals


This kind of nonsense is what you get when people rant about things in
which they have no actual experience.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


>
>>[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
>>non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
>>away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
>>AT&T's Wireless Service.]
>
> Not true.
>

Care to explain your response, Johnny? Now that the Cingular name is gone
FOREVER, attws might be more appropriate.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:51:05 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Tinman wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Now *that's* funny! But he gets better:
>>> "Voicestream would now seem to be set for the long haul, and I think
>>> Nextel is a reasonably good bet. Regardless, Cingular is in a
>>> different class."
>>>
>>> Trust me, you can't make this **** up. Google it.
>>
>>A year ago I wrote:
>>
>>"It's as if he's terrified that when (and if) the Cingular name is
>>dropped, that Usenet readers and posters will migrate to the old
>>alt.cellular.attws, a group that doesn't have a charter written by
>>him. So he's desperately trying to extend the alt.cellular.cingular
>>charter onto alt.cellular.attws (at least that's the only explanation
>>anyone's come up with for why he's posting a charter into a group that
>>it doesn't apply to)."
>>
>>Now the migration is happening, and he's increased his spamming.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
>
> What's increasing is your attempts to disrupt these newsgroups and to
> run down AT&T/Cingular, increasingly desperate as more and more of
> your forecasts are shown to be nonsense.
>

Anybody else notice that Navas sounds much more desperate than usual in his
posts? The posts have certainly taken on a different tone and sound much
more juvenile than usual.

Reality finally smacking you in the ass, Johnny?

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:56:53 -0700, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
in <[email protected]>:

>Thanks for clarifying. This was one of the top organic Google listings
>for "starting a newsgroup"
>Just pulled it off for the sake of point of reference.

There are much better references on the Internet. Google isn't a good
source for this sort of thing.

>No word about charters in any of them.

Not true. Do your homework.

>It's obviously not rocket science
>to start one or get one "approved"

It's actually pretty hard, particularly if there's no charter. To get
this group off the ground I personally contacted all of the major news
service admins.

>Case in point are the thousands of nonsense alt. groups that are still
>listed after all these years.

Irrelevant -- that's just legacy crap in the system.

Get some actual experience and you won't be so far off the mark.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Scott wrote:

> Anybody else notice that Navas sounds much more desperate than usual in his
> posts? The posts have certainly taken on a different tone and sound much
> more juvenile than usual.

I think that now that the migration is actually occurring, he's trying
to figure out what to do about it. If he'd gone and created an
"alt.cellular.att" group last year, it might have had some chance of
becoming viable. But look at alt.cellular.t-mobile. While it's carried
by most Usenet servers, and it's now more popular than the old
Voicestream group that it replaced, it's still not on Google Groups,
which is widely used. I don't understand why Google Groups won't add it.

Remember how Navas was so desperately against alt.cellular.t-mobile? It
was because he didn't like the idea of a company name change resulting
in a new group, because in this case he knew the "new" group would
actually be an existing group, one that he didn't write the charter for.

In any case, you only encourage him by responding to him. Remember the
adage, "The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers
will have trouble telling which is the nut."

Even Google Groups now has kill files. Use them sparingly, but wisely.


[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Please post all alt.cellular.cingular
non-spam posts to alt.cellular.attws as well. The Cingular name has gone
away, and alt.cellular.attws is the proper venue for posts regarding
AT&T's Wireless Service.]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:16:24 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> Anybody else notice that Navas sounds much more desperate than usual in his
>> posts? The posts have certainly taken on a different tone and sound much
>> more juvenile than usual.
>
>I think that now that the migration is actually occurring, he's trying
>to figure out what to do about it. ...

How silly. I couldn't care less.

>Remember how Navas was so desperately against alt.cellular.t-mobile?

How bogus. I couldn't have cared less.

>In any case, you only encourage him by responding to him. Remember the
>adage, "The problem with arguing with a crazy person is that onlookers
>will have trouble telling which is the nut."

"A little learning is a dangerous thing." [Alexander Pope]
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." [Mark Twain]

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:56:53 -0700, Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
> in <[email protected]>:
>
> >Thanks for clarifying. This was one of the top organic Google listings
> >for "starting a newsgroup"
> >Just pulled it off for the sake of point of reference.
>
> There are much better references on the Internet. Google isn't a good
> source for this sort of thing.
>
> >No word about charters in any of them.
>
> Not true. Do your homework.
>
> >It's obviously not rocket science
> >to start one or get one "approved"
>
> It's actually pretty hard, particularly if there's no charter. To get
> this group off the ground I personally contacted all of the major news
> service admins.
>
> >Case in point are the thousands of nonsense alt. groups that are still
> >listed after all these years.
>
> Irrelevant -- that's just legacy crap in the system.

Not irrelevant when many of those thousands got theirs either around the
same time or much after you say you got this one.
>
> Get some actual experience and you won't be so far off the mark.

I see I touched a nerve.

Less playing hard to get, and more being forthright will help you out a
lot.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"