> It's not gonna fly at this point. It looks like we would have to finish > a vote in under 4 days to get this to pass, so they are suggesting we > write up a new rfd. Would it be alright if we were both listed as > proponents? That's cool with me. IMO, the more proponents, the better :) > Also, if we're going to have to go through the process of resubmitting > this proposal all over again we might as well make it moderated. Would > you mind being listed as a moderator? In the meantime I'll do some more > reading on newsgroup creation and find out how many moderators we can > have, who can be a mentor, etc. and ask the wearables group if anyone > else would like to be moderator on the group and get at least a seed of > people from wear-hard to get involved in this newsgroup (but I imagine > once there is a newsgroup people will just appear). I agree. I read your modified RFD and it looked good. I like the changes and the description of the moderation techniques. I'm wondering if there's any way to connect this to the mailing list, like with an e-mail<-->Usenet gateway or automating the list subscription process to also add that person to the newsgroup's list of people who can post directly. I wouldn't mind being a moderator at all, I just don't want to be in it alone -- it seems a little too intimidating to me. > BTW, was there any opposition to a newsgroup when you started in on > this? and/or were there any people who would be offended if they weren't > included in setting up this newsgroup? I feel a little bad that I > haven't been posting to the wear-hard group about the newsgroup, but I > don't want to see this get bogged down in discussion on wear-hard. I > could just see hundreds of messages back and forth about > "comp.sys.wearables or comp.sys.wearable", "moderated or unmoderated" > "comp.sys.linux.wearable, comp.sys.wince.wearable, etc." Hmm, the only thing I remember is that people wanted it to be moderated. At the time, no one else had stepped up to help, so I chose to leave it as it was. No one complained about not being involved with the process (they are allowed to make suggestions during the RFD as well). As far as the name goes, I was basically following the pattern that had been set by groups such as comp.sys.laptops and comp.sys.palmtops. They used the plural and stated the basic type of machine. Other groups such as comp.sys.wearables.os and comp.sys.wearables.processors. I think the name "comp.sys.wearables" allows for a lot of expansion later, so it seems pretty safe. Thanks for taking this off my hands. I am really interested in being involved with this, but had just been bogged down. It's good to know I'm not the only one who really wants it :) -- Gregory Martin Pfeil Programmer-Misogynist-BUFH-MIRC mailto:http://falcon.jmu.edu/~pfeilgm/ ICQ#: 235067
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail