Collection of Internet/Collection of Internet.iso/faq/news/creating/helper

Internet Message Format | 1994-03-18 | 23KB

Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!qualcomm.com!happy.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: [e-mail] (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.announce.newusers,news.answers
Subject: Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
Followup-To: poster
Date: 18 Mar 1994 23:04:53 GMT
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Lines: 470
Approved: [e-mail]
Expires: 16 Apr 1994 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <2mdc2l$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: happy.qualcomm.com
Summary: Help with the process of newsgroup proposal, voting, and creation
Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu news.groups:41919 news.announce.newusers:435 news.answers:16521

Archive-name: creating-newsgroups/helper
Last-modified: 1993/11/15
Version: 1.06

The Usenet Newsgroup Creation Companion
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted once a month - Comments to [e-mail] welcome!

So you want to create a newsgroup...

Wallace Sayre said, "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter
form of politics, because the stakes are so low."  He didn't know Usenet;
Welcome to the next level.


[ If you're more interested in the voting side than the creation side, a
good guide for the interested party or voter is the User's Guide to the
Changing USENET, maintained by [e-mail] (John
Stanley). ]



1. What This is All About
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet is a loosely knit anarchy - there is no controlling body which
forces any site on the net to choose which newsgroups they can carry.
Sites can create or remove groups at will - however, they can't expect
that everyone else will honor their decisions.  Obviously, this can be
rather chaotic, so in time a set of customs has evolved to ease the
confusion and keep the creation of new groups to a point just below
critical mass.

Here's how it works: there is a general agreement among Usenet news
administrators that groups in the "big seven" (comp., misc., news., rec.,
sci., soc., talk.) hierarchies will only be honored at their sites if the
group passes the "official" voting procedures defined in the Guidelines.
Anyone can create a group if they figure out the correct message format
to do so, but it will only be carried on a minuscule number of sites, and
anyone posting to the group may be greeted with messages claiming that
the group is bogus.

The Guidelines, which you should read if you want to create a group, can
be found in the periodic posting "How to Create a New Usenet Group" in
news.announce.newusers, or ftp to ftp.uu.net, go to the directory
usenet/news.announce.newusers and get the file "Guidelines".  If you
don't read this file and the group vote is canceled due to
irregularities, you have only yourself to blame.

But the Guidelines aren't the whole story.  Another set of customs has
sprung up around newsgroup votings - mostly because there has been an
unfortunate number of sleazy tactics used in past group creation
attempts.  As with Caesar's wife, a vote must be beyond reproach.  If you
even accidentally violate one of these customs, you may find yourself
with a botched vote, a lot of wasted time, and a massive flamewar.  The
purpose of this document is to help you through this potential minefield.

This is _not_ in any way an official document, it has no force of law -
rather it helps you with the informal conventions which have evolved over
the years.



Quick Glossary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CFV          Call for votes.  See the Guidelines.
FAQ          Frequently Asked Questions list - many groups have a FAQ
             periodically posted to answer common questions.
Flame        A heated attack in a message.  Like fires, they spread.
Flamefest    A general message war containing lots of flames.
News admin   News administrator.  Someone in charge of keeping Usenet
             news running at a site.  These are the people you have to
             convince to carry your group.
Proponent    The person who is the driving force behind the vote.
             Generally the person who does the RFD and the work involved
             in setting up the CFV.
RFD          Request for discussion.  See the Guidelines.
Votetaker    The person who actually posts the CFVs and counts votes.
             Usually not the proponent.


Quick Overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What's the general voting process?
A: There are five main stages.  You _really_ should read the Guidelines
   if you actually decide to go through with it, but this is a quick
   summary.

   1) Discussion of the idea.  If your proposal directly effects an
   existing group you might want to "test the waters" first to see if
   there is interest.

   2) RFD (Request for Discussion).  The proponent (you) posts an RFD to
   all interested groups plus news.announce.newgroups and news.groups.
   If you don't include n.a.n, it's not an official RFD.

   3) Discussion in news.groups.  People react to the RFD, express
   support, express loathing, or perhaps offer suggestions.  If you
   significantly change your RFD based on discussion in this group, you
   should issue a second (or more) RFD as in step 2.

   4) Voting.  Contact [e-mail] regarding having do the
   actual drudgery of voting for you.  The vote should usually start
   around 30 days after the first RFD, and no earlier than 21 days after.
   The votetaker will handle the official CFVs (Call for Votes). The
   voting will run 22 to 30 days, usually 22.

   5) Results.  After the voting has ended, the votetaker compiles the
   results and posts them to the net.  If the group passes it will be
   newgrouped after five days, though it may take a while to get to some
   sites.  If the group fails, it can't be voted on for six months.


General Suggestions
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Why so sanctimonious?
A: Because the politics can be so vicious.  You can ignore all of this,
   but in a controversial group proposal, say involving politics,
   culture, or Star Trek, there are people just waiting for you to
   breathe wrong so they can call for a vote invalidation.  You don't
   have to satisfy me, you have to satisfy them.  These "rules" already
   exist.  Read this now and you could save yourself a lot of hassle in
   the long run.

Q: What's the best way to find out how to propose a group and run a vote?
A: Read the guidelines as above, read this document, read news.groups for
   a few months - you're guaranteed at least one enlightening flamefest.
   You'll also see plenty of RFDs and CFVs, and see the reaction to them.

Q: If I don't violate any of the "official" rules, how can my vote be
   invalidated?
A: Remember, this is all by agreement between system administrators.  Any
   news admin can declare that they will not be carrying a group for any
   reason.  If it's a respected admin, others may join.  This can
   snowball to where you have an "official" group that nobody carries.
   And if the news.announce.newgroups moderator(s) decide you violated
   the spirit of the rules, you're dead in the water.

Q: What's the best policy in order to avoid any minefields?
A: Full honesty, full disclosure, adherence to the rule and spirit of the
   Guidelines.  If you're going to do something, such as send the CFV to
   a mailing list, _say so_ in your CFV!  It's amazing how much pain
   something like this can avoid.

Q: This document doesn't tell me what I need to know!
A: [e-mail] is a mailing list of administrators who can
   help you on the tough questions, if neither this or news.groups helps.



Thinking about a Group Vote
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Do I really want to do this?
A: That depends - it's a lot of effort, even with some help from
   programs.  It's a lot of time - initial discussion, a month for RFD, a
   month for CFV, some time for results and creation.  All told, from two
   to three months of your time.

Q: Is this going to be a lot of work?
A: Going through the entire RFD, CFV, and voting process can take quite a
   bit of time.  You've got to meet all your deadlines, face the endless
   bickering on news.groups, and thrash out some sort of compromise with
   all the highly opinionated people who have their own ideas about how
   the group charter should look.  Don't go into it lightly.

Q: What are some alternatives?
A: Consider a mailing list.  This can be set up instantly, and has the
   advantages of being fairly focused and having a smaller number of
   people out to cause chaos.


Q: What about reorganizing existing groups instead of just creating a
   group for a new subject?
A: This is hairy - it's a whole level of magnitude above just creating a
   new group.  There is only one standard reason for splitting or
   reorganizing an existing set of groups - overwhelming traffic.  This
   usually means about 200 messages a day, which can make it tough even
   for someone using a good newsreader.

   Alternative: try getting people to use keywords in subjects, such as
   U7 for Ultima VII in a games group.  If most people are considerate
   this way, killfiles can easily kill or select desired articles.  Not
   having a newsreader with killfile capability is not generally viewed
   with sympathy.

   Who's going to take charge?  You really shouldn't take on the
   responsibilities of a reorganization unless you've fully handled at
   least one group vote.

   If you _really_ want to consider splitting, thoroughly discuss the
   possible split on the affected groups before even thinking about an
   RFD.  Work out what you think the new groups should be.  You want
   enough of a split to divide up the traffic, but you don't want too
   many new groups, and you don't want the subject matter of groups to
   overlap.  Do you need to remove any existing groups?  Because of the
   complex nature of reorganizations, this should be worked out in
   advance.  Then do the RFD if there's a consensus for it.

   If one group is especially opposed to the reorganization, or there is
   lots of opposition to one group, leave it out, unless you want to get
   a lot of all-NO spite votes.  And remember, each group creation or
   removal is a separate vote, even though they can all be on the same
   ballot.  If some things pass and others don't, weird results can
   result.  Remember, you can always do things in two or more steps
   (votes).



Suggestions on RFDs
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: What should I know about the group name?
A: Check existing groups for hints on appropriate names.  Especially
   check to see if a group already meets your needs!  Also, although few
   systems are affected anymore, each component of the group name should
   be 14 characters or less.  For example, foo.bar.bletch has three
   components, "foo", "bar", and "bletch", all less than 15 characters,
   so no problem.  sci.physics.particle-accelerators, on the other hand,
   is out, as the last component is 21 characters.  Shorten it down.

   The naming is very important - it should be hierarchical, with each
   extension in the hierarchy further subdividing the subject.  Don't add
   a period just as punctuation (for example, foo.bar.don.rippold is bad,
   use foo.bar.don-rippold)!

   Most new groups fit in nicely at three levels deep... usually
   comp.sys.something or rec.arts.something.  See if your subject fits
   nicely under existing hierarchies.  New second level hierarchies, such
   as rec.something, are usually frowned on unless somehow Usenet has
   managed to overlook a group for a major subject, such as rec.toys.
   The "big 7" hierarchies covered by these rules are:

   comp Computer related.
   misc Anything that doesn't go somewhere else - not used much
   news Dealing with Usenet itself.
   rec  Recreational.  Fun stuff.
   sci  Related to the sciences.
   soc  Social issues - for discussion of such issues, or certain social
        backgrounds, such as soc.culture.italian.
   talk Heated debate about controversial issues - politics and religion,
        for instance.

   There are also the "other hierarchies" such as bit. and bionet.  The
   most important of these is alt., which operates on different and much
   looser "rules."  Read alt.config for information about this.

   If you just can't come up with something, [e-mail] is
   a mailing list of administrators who can help you.


Q: Where should I post the RFD?
A: All RFDs _must_ be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups.  Any which
   don't do this are invalid, which can cause problems when you try to
   start a CFV.  You should also crosspost to news.groups and set
   "Followup-To: news.groups" where discussion should take place.  If you
   don't do it, the moderator has to.  Also crosspost to groups which
   might be interested, but don't go overboard.  A good way to avoid
   confusion here and when you post the CFV is to just list the groups in
   the body of the RFD.

   If your site won't let you post to a moderated group, send your RFD to
   [e-mail].

   Since news.announce.newgroups is moderated, your posting will not
   appear in _any_ of the groups until the moderator approves the
   posting.  Be patient.  Don't go posting it to the other groups
   yourself; this will irritate people.  Also, the moderator may notice
   problems in your proposal, and can help you correct them before they
   get posted.


Q: How long does the RFD discussion go on?
A: The minimum period of RFD discussion before you can issue the CFV,
   even if the consensus of all posters is "good idea, lets do it!" is 21
   days by preference of the news.announce.newgroups moderator.  If the
   RFD takes much longer than 30 days, the discussion should be taken
   offline until a consensus can be reached.

   Keep in mind that you can work out many of the hairy details in
   advance before ever posting an RFD - this is what has been done in
   several tricky reorganizations and has worked rather well.  The
   group(s) can take their time working out all the details, then post
   the RFD, and all you have to deal with then are suggestions from
   news.groups readers, which should be possible to do in under 30 days.


Q: How many times should I post the RFD?
A: Usually just once.  Another RFD is used only if there have been
   significant changes to the proposal since the first RFD and you want
   to involve those who don't read news.groups / news.announce.newgroups
   in the discussion again.  In other words, not all that often.


Suggestions on Moderation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Who should moderate a group, if it is moderated?
A: It should be someone respected, who has a fast news connection (no
   leaf nodes), and has the time to do a good job of it.  The moderator
   kills or nurtures the moderated group, so choose wisely.

   In addition, the moderator should be able to set up a separate account
   or mailing address just for moderation purposes.


Q: What if the moderator needs to go on vacation?
A: It's an excellent idea to name a backup moderator at group proposal
   time.  If the moderator ever needs to disappear for an extended period
   of time, the backup moderator takes over until the moderator returns.


Q: How about getting rid of the moderator?
A: There is _no_ official way to get rid of a moderator without their
   consent!  Even if they turn out to be a bum who never does anything,
   you can't easily replace them.  Thus, take great care with your
   moderation guidelines.



Suggestions on CFVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Should I take the CFV myself?
A: For many reasons, group-advice and the news.announce.newgroups
   moderator suggest you use the services of an experienced neutral
   votetaker.  You can email [e-mail] about having a member
   of the Usenet Volunteer Votetakers run the vote for you.

   Also, Jonathan Kamens has a vote server running, which has been used
   quite successfully in the past for controversial votes. " People who
   want to use my server to collect votes for a Usenet vote should
   contact me by sending mail to [e-mail].  I need to know what the
   name of the newsgroup(s) being voted on are, when the voting period
   will start, and when the voting period will end.  I will send back
   voting instructions to include in the CFV, and then the vote organizer
   should send me back the CFV so that I can check it before it is
   submitted to news.announce.newgroups.  If the vote organizer wants a
   list of voters during the vote to post a mass ACK, he/she should
   contact me when he/she wants the list.  He/she should also contact me
   when the vote is over to get a final tally of who voted which way."


Q: Which groups should you have the votetaker post the CFV to?
A: All CFV's _must_ be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups, and should
   be crossposted news.groups.  Also to other interested groups, but
   don't go overboard - the groups you posted the RFD to are a good
   guide.  This is in the Guidelines, but is violated so often it is
   worth repeating.  Please post only to groups that are related to the
   subject of your CFV.

Q: What if I forget or don't notice an appropriate group until after the
   CFV has been posted?
A: First, note that is should be an _appropriate_ group.  You have two
   choices.  First, if the second CFV has not been posted yet, the group
   may be added to that CFV, but the votetaker will add a note at the top
   of the CFV letting the news.announce.newgroups moderator know what's
   happened.  He may overrule the addition.

   The second choice is to post a note in the group mentioning that the
   CFV is going on, sorry this group was missed, and please read article
   "CFV: the.group.name" in news.announce.newgroups if you are interested
   in voting. Don't just go and post the CFV there.  It's effectively the
   same thing, but appearances are everything.


Q: How long should the CFV run and how many times should it be posted?
A: Standard length of a vote is 22 days.  The vote can run as long as 31
   days, but this usually doesn't accomplish anything except delay the
   group for another week and a half.  There are normally two CFVs
   posted.  Once on the initial day, and the second a week after that or
   halfway into the vote.  The votetaker will take care of this.


Q: Can the CFV be sent to mailing lists?
A: Yes, but the people on the mailing list should be able to read the new
   group, if created, or else you have people voting on something they'll
   never see, which may cause some raised eyebrows.  And of course the
   mailing list should be intimately related to the subject of the
   proposed group.

Q: How should the CFV be sent to a mailing list?
A: First, use the full disclosure tactic.  Let the votetaker know which
   mailing lists the CFV should go to, so he can note them in the CFV as
   required.  Either the votetaker or the proponent can do the actual
   mailing, but make sure it is done _only_ after the official CFV has
   appeared in news.announce.newgroups, or the votes received will be
   invalid.

Q: What's the big deal about mailing lists?
A: One of the best ways to get your vote canceled is to send the CFV to a
   mailing list without following the above procedures. Disclose in
   advance!


Q: Can I campaign for or against the group(s)?
A: The rule is that the votetaker can't do any campaigning.  If you're
   not the votetaker (and you likely will not be), you can campaign.

Q: Can I vote on the group?
A: You bet.  One person, one vote, and even though you're the proponent
   you're also a voter.

Q: Can I find out how the vote is going?
A: No.  The votetaker, by the Guidelines, may not reveal to _anyone_ how
   the vote is going, even to the proponent.  If they do, the vote is
   rendered invalid.  So don't even ask.


Q: Any other hints?
A: The votetaker will take care of the mechanics of the CFV presentation.
   Your job is to come up with the best group charter you can.


Suggestions After the Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: The group passed!  My job is over, right?
A: Wrong.  Don't be caught napping.  Your new group will be visited by
   plenty of people who never saw the RFD or CFV and want to know what's
   up.  Even people who know what the group is for may not be familiar
   with proper etiquette.

Q: How about a FAQ?
A: Good idea.  It's a Good Thing to have a embryonic Frequently Asked
   Questions list which can be posted as soon as the group is created
   that explains the nature of the group, including the charter.  It will
   grow, but it's good to have one to start with.  In fact, if you create
   a FAQ before the CFV is posted, and include it in the CFV, it may
   answer the questions of those who are unsure whether or not they want
   to vote for the group - it's an indicator that the group may be of
   similar high quality.

   Your FAQ should definitely encourage the use of keywords in the
   subject line, for help with killfiles.  For example, in
   rec.arts.comics, MARVEL, DC, or INDY in the subject, as in "Subject:
   DC: Sandman #92", are suggested.  These will depend on the nature of
   your group.


Q: It's going to be moderated, is there anything special to do?
A: Yes.  Read the Guidelines, and as soon as the vote passes, follow the
   instructions on mailing the moderator's addresses to the specified
   people who maintain the official moderators lists.

   Whoever is moderating should have another account or mailing address
   created which is for nothing but postings to the moderated group.
   This way, there is no possibility of confusion as to personal mail and
   potential posts, among other advantages.  This may take some time to
   set up, and should be done as soon as possible.


Q: The group failed!  When can I try again?
A: In six months.  Consider the results, though, so you don't waste your
   time again.  If it failed miserably, you might try a mailing list
   instead.  If it was a close vote, consider any flaws in the proposal.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus Endeth Ye Documente

Thanks To: Alan Barrett, Nick Fitzpatrick, Ed McGuire, Andrew Hackard, J
   Lee Jaap, Jonathan I. Kamens, David Lawrence, Mark Linimon, Emma
   Pease, Brenda J. Roder, Chip Rosenthal, Edmund Schweppe, David Seal,
   Al Sharp, Josh Smith, David W. Tamkin, Coyt D Watters, David Wright

--
To function efficiently, any group of people or employees must have faith in
their leader. -- Capt. Bligh