RFD: create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.skiing

Whats wrong with the exsiting group RSRE ? Agreed traffic is not that
high & IMHO like to see more europeans contributing to RSRE rather than
fragmenting of a seaperate UK ng.

Nigel

PG wrote:
"David Mahon" wrote in message
...

In article , Ian Spare
writes


.../...


Here is the charter for RS

For discussion of ski and snowboard resorts in Europe. Discussion of

the

pros and cons of different resorts in Europe and the snow conditions

at

the different resorts in Europe would be suitable for this group.

Other

areas that might be suitable for this group: lodging facilities,

grading

of runs, accessibility of ski resorts in Europe. Europe is a
multi-cultural, multi-langauge area. This creates problems of a

unique

sort. This group will have no designated language. The language a
poster desires to post in is appropriate. However, to make this work

the

multilingual people may desire to interrupt for the people that do not
understand the poster's language of choice.

This is very different to the proposed charter for uk.rec.skiing.


This has probably been discussed already, but traffic through rsre is
quite light, and I doubt that this has anything to do with its charter.
As David said a similar attempt in France was totally unsuccessful. It
would make more sense to amend the charter for rsre than to effectively
double up on ngs for a pretty limited readership.

Pete

Ace wrote:
partially due to the implosion of RSA, RSRE has become _the_ de-facto
ski discussion group.

The thing that is good about r.s.r.e is that it is a relatively ego-less
newsgroup (well apart from me :-). There are people who either live in
the resorts, like Simon, PG and Ian or like you, ski a great deal during
the season. Mix this in with the international angle contributed by
people like Nicolas Masson and all the UK based skiers who have their
own wants and needs and it can make for interesting and informed, if
heated, debates. I notice from the French Tourist board that the number
of UK and Irish based skiers organising their own ski holidays rather
than doing a bed-and-butter package is growing each year, something
n.g.s like this can help.

Anyway this is just a discussion, if it comes to a CFD we can voice our
opinions either way as to whether the group gets created. With things
like the snowdomes and dry skiing there are perhaps aspects of skiing
that are not well catered for here and would pick up a new audience. At
the moment I just see it as another n.g.

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:01:38
uk.net.news.config Ian Spare

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:41:00 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Not the point at all. If sufficient people want the group in uk.* and
the naming is sorted out it will happen. Dilution of
rec.skiing.resorts.europe isn't an issue for people concerned with the
uk.* hierarchy.

It was the point enough that the RFD was posted into RSRE. If it's not
connected then I'm a loss to see why it was posted there.

Because we like things to be discussed openly and the proponent
(sensibly) included "your" (note the inverted commas) group in the
crosspost.

If you
objected to the RFD being posted in in RSRE then take it up with the
poster.

I don't. I might have objected if the proponent hadn't included
relevant groups though.

It's totally mindless to objiect to the RSRE becuase it doesn't have a
UK prefix.

The RFD is not an objection to any existing group.

Baring a few mindless bigots I can't see who might start
posting to a ski group just becuase it's got a uk prefix

People in the UK looking for a UK orientated group to discuss snowsports
seems obvious.

so the best
you hope for is take traffic out RSRE which does reduce it and for
what?

Maybe people in the uk would prefer a group of their own? We'll see.
The "taking of traffic" from "your" group is a non-issue. My best
advice is if the people move follow them -- but we haven't got there
yet.

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:43:05
uk.net.news.config Alex Heney

Wm:
Not the point at all. If sufficient people want the group in uk.* and
the naming is sorted out it will happen.

But is there any indication that there will be?

It seems so to me. That is more the proponents business though. He has
to summarise the discussion and I haven't noticed anyone from the uk end
saying "no no no" except for (possibly) Ace who specifically says he
*doesn't* speak for the "Ski Club of Great Britain" and doesn't appear
to be in the UK (based on my quick reading of his headers).

Dilution of
rec.skiing.resorts.europe isn't an issue for people concerned with the
uk.* hierarchy.


But it is for those who already read this group.

Why? Maybe uk.rec.[something about snow and skiing etc.] would be a
better place?

I suspect that several of the readers of this group will vote against,
because they will be worried about the effects a new uk group would
have on this one.

Yes, and I thank you for expressing your concern in a reasonable way.
Some people do get concerned when a new uk.* group is created. They
think "uk.* is stealing my group" or some such. uk.* can't actually do
that. If people shift to a new group it is because they want to --
surely that is right?

--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:54:13 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:01:38
uk.net.news.config Ian Spare

so the best
you hope for is take traffic out RSRE which does reduce it and for
what?

Maybe people in the uk would prefer a group of their own? We'll see.
The "taking of traffic" from "your" group is a non-issue. My best
advice is if the people move follow them -- but we haven't got there
yet.

What you miss here is that there's a very real possibility of diluting
the value of both groups by inducing such a split. In reality, I
suspect that many, if not most, discussions would be x-posted anyway,
but that would surely not be the best way to proceed.

Now, if we could just put a newsgroup alias in place, so uk folks
think they're posting to a uk group but in reality are on RSRE then I
think we'd have the perfect solution.

--
Ace (bruce dot rogers at roche dot com)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:45:41 +0200, David Off
wrote:

Ace wrote:
partially due to the implosion of RSA, RSRE has become _the_ de-facto
ski discussion group.

The thing that is good about r.s.r.e is that it is a relatively ego-less
newsgroup (well apart from me :-).

And me :-)

FWIW I agree 100% with the rest of your comments too, but then that's
probably not a huge surprise.

--
Ace in Alsace - bruce dot rogers at roche dot com
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

People in the UK looking for a UK orientated group to discuss
snowsports
seems obvious.


Ok, I'm in the UK, and would NOT want to post to specific UK group. The
strength of this group is the broad range of people, you can get info
from people actually in or close to resort, who have been to many places
around Europe. I'd love to see a UK only group posting snow reports off
Teletext

The "taking of traffic" from "your" group is a non-issue. My best
advice is if the people move follow them -- but we haven't got
there
yet.

It's a big issue IMHO, if posts are taken from this NG then we could end
up with both being non sustainable.

If it ain't broke why fix it?

Greg

Greg Hilton wrote:

People in the UK looking for a UK orientated group to discuss
snowsports
seems obvious.

Ok, I'm in the UK, and would NOT want to post to specific UK group. The
strength of this group is the broad range of people, you can get info
from people actually in or close to resort, who have been to many places
around Europe. I'd love to see a UK only group posting snow reports off
Teletext

The "taking of traffic" from "your" group is a non-issue. My best
advice is if the people move follow them -- but we haven't got
there
yet.

It's a big issue IMHO, if posts are taken from this NG then we could end
up with both being non sustainable.

If it ain't broke why fix it?


Agreed. I will be voting NO if this ever gets to a vote.

Seems to me that the majority of posters here are from the UK originally
even if they don't still live here.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:38:12 +0000 (UTC), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

In article
"Ace" writes:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:54:13 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:


Because we like things to be discussed openly and the proponent
(sensibly) included "your" (note the inverted commas) group in the
crosspost.

It was kinda sneaky to snip all other x-posted groups from the
follow-up, though...

That is the standard practice with the uk.* hierarchy. The announcement
of the RFD is made in the moderated uk.net.news.announce newsgroup[1] and
cross-posted to uk.net.news.config AND any other relevant group(s). The
rules of the hierarchy state that all discussion is supposed to take
place in unnc, which is why Followup-To is set there.

It always used to be the case that this setting was explicitly mentioned
in the RFD; are you claiming that this was omitted?

Nope, but you must surely be aware that many netizens aren't savvy
enough to work around it. More importantly, regardless of what you
people who feel you 'own' the UK. heirarchy think, discussions about a
new uk. skiing newsgroup should, IMO, be held on the pre-existing
group you seem determined to sublimate.


Whatever, perhaps it's not worth arguing about. Eben if the new group
goes ahead it's unlikely to succeeed in the long term, as the main
potential posters all have a 'home' already.

(Mark you, although nowadays I am a regular reader of unnc, in the past I
certainly didn't want to waste my then costly bandwidth on taking that
group, and I was decidedly put out[2] when discussion of an enforced
chartering of uk.telecom was seemingly being hidden away in unnc.

So you agree that it was a poor practise but still support it now?

[1] The volume of traffic in unna is such that _everyone_ who reads any
uk.* newsgroups and/or is based in the UK has no excuse for failing to
read the group.

Rubbish. Absolute codswhallop. Why should I, a non-UK resident, take
an interest in the petty bickerings of people who seem to only be
interested in creating new groups for the sake of it?


--
Ace in Alsace - bruce dot rogers at roche dot com
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

In on Wed, 22 Oct
2003 09:48:55 +0200, Ace wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:38:12 +0000 (UTC), (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

In article
"Ace" writes:
It was kinda sneaky to snip all other x-posted groups from the
follow-up, though...

That is the standard practice with the uk.* hierarchy. The announcement
of the RFD is made in the moderated uk.net.news.announce newsgroup[1] and
cross-posted to uk.net.news.config AND any other relevant group(s). The
rules of the hierarchy state that all discussion is supposed to take
place in unnc, which is why Followup-To is set there.

It always used to be the case that this setting was explicitly mentioned
in the RFD; are you claiming that this was omitted?

Nope, but you must surely be aware that many netizens aren't savvy
enough to work around it. More importantly, regardless of what you
people who feel you 'own' the UK. heirarchy think, discussions about a
new uk. skiing newsgroup should, IMO, be held on the pre-existing
group you seem determined to sublimate.

The people who, as you put it, 'own' the uk.* hierarchy are the
people who care enough to take an interest. Life has a natural
division of effort, everybody gets to take part - those who bother
to turn up get to set the agenda, those who don't get to whine at
those who do.

The routine procedure for group creation in uk.* is that someone
posts an RFD. Then a handful of people who have previously taken
not a gnat's-turd worth of interest in the uk.* hierarchy pile in
to display their knowledge by declaring that those who've spent
years busting their intestines keeping the hierarchy working are
doing it all wrong, how they think it should be done, that there
is no need for the group, that it will die on its feet, that other
hierarchies already have similar groups and that this one will
mean the Death of Usenet. It then goes to a vote, the democratic
will of the community prevails, the group gets created and
develops into a thriving Usenet community, and the previously
existing groups in other hierarchies are not damaged in the
slightest. The prophets of doom are generally never seen or heard
of again anywhere within the uk.* hierarchy. Then someone else
proposes another group and the whole cycle begins again with new
participants, each of whom is convinced they invented the game and
that their arguments are entirely original and intellectually
unassailable. Those who've seen it all dozens of times before yawn
and wait for the vote.

Thank you for playing your part in maintaining this time-honoured
tradition.

Followup set to unnc

--
DG