From: hartman@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: My experience
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:51:33 GMT
Organization: negligable

In article <BxFK0E.KCF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>A while ago I proposed a new newsgroup to be entitled rec.games.frp.campaign.
>At the time which I proposed the group, I had been reading news.groups for
>a period of one month, which is quite a bit less than the six month reccomended
>time period.  I now see the wisdom in waiting....
>
>Nonetheless, I made a proposal, which was badly written.  I responded quickly,
[...]
>information to him, and to others, if the request was made in e-mail.  This
>was made with the assumption that others would realize that the experience
>of a the person is not an issue, it is the quality of the proposal and only
>the quality of the proposal which should decide whether or not a new
>newsgroup is created.  Tim then mailed everyone a piece of e-mail requesting
[...]
>I admit that my innitial proposal was badly conceived, and would best have
>been left in the back of my mind until I had gained some more news.groups
>experience (I only joined this group to make my proposal.  Up until now
>I've never had any desire to create a new newsgroup).

The two sections of this "apology" seem in conflict.  At first you seem
to state that you now understand why not waiting before you understand
the group hierarchies involved before making proposals altering them
is a good idea: that if you do not understand the lay of the land you
are liable to make a bad proposal (which you admit yours was).  You follow
this up with a (admittedly non-flame-level) tirade about the person who
was saying "wait until you understand things before you make a proposal".
Saying that "it is the quality of the proposal and only the quality of
the proposal which should decide whether or not a new newsgroup is created."
and going on to complain about this person's handling of things.
You then turn around again and say that your initial proposal was badly
conceived and would have best been delayed until you had gained more
experience.

THIS WAS PRECISELY THE POINT!

The main point that was being made was NOT that "just because you are
new we won't listen to you so there nyah!".  It was that people who
are new (and don't yet understand what is currently available) have a 
much higher percentage chance of writing a bad proposal.

	- You were new to the rgf.* group.
	- You wrote a bad proposal.
	- q.e.d.

>Still, the fact remains that, if (hypothetically) Bob comes in with a proposal,
>it should not matter of Bob has read Usenet for a sum total of 1 day.  If Bob
>sees a need, and makes a proposal which is a good idea, Bob's newsgroup should
>be created.  If Bob has been reading Usenet since 1847, and makes a dumb 
>proposal, his idea should be scrapped.
>
>Up until this point, whether Bob's idea is good or bad has been determined by
>a length discussion.  Bob's idea might start out rough, but in the discussion
>it may be refined, and in the end emerge as an excellent proposal.
>
>Tim seems to wish to change this process such that not only should the proposal
>be discussed, but Bob himself should be discussed.  He should be disected, 

Wrong.  Bob misunderstood Tim.  Tim was saying "Hey, Bob -- if you wait
around a while 'till you get to understand what we've got you won't 
be likely to make such a dumb proposal."

If Bob has a good proposal, fine.  But if Bob doesn't know what he
is attempting to alter, the chance of this is very low.

But let's take a look at it from Tim's perspective:

	- The proposal was dumb. (more diplomatically: ill-conceived :)
	- This guy is new.
	- Let's suggest that he cool it until he knows what he's
	  talking about so he doesn't keep embarassing himself.

Tim may not have been very diplomatic about it, but the point was
valid.

>I don't like salad dressing

Pervert!  (Imagine, forcing those salads to go around nekkid!)


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Did you think it's a joke?		|
Well that's all right, do what 		|	-Richard Hartman
you want to do.				|	hartman@uLogic.COM
I've said my piece, now I 		|
leave it all up to you.			|
Newsgroups: news.groups