Irene Waters  wrote: 
 > wrote 
 >> Irene Waters  wrote: 
 >> > wrote 
 >> >> 
 >> >> In news.groups Irene  wrote: 
 >> 
 >> >> >Bonds are one of several popular investment vehicles. Consumers 
 >typically 
 >> >> >buy them to reduce the volatility of portfolios. Following the descent 
 >of 
 >> >> >stock market indices after 2000 and subsequent unprecedented changes 
 >in 
 >> >> >interest rates, bond discussion has increased in the media and on 
 >Usenet. 
 >> >> >Yet none of the 10 misc.invest newsgroups currently available is 
 >> >dedicated 
 >> >> >to bonds. 
 >> >> 
 >> >> That begs the questions, "do bonds get discussed in those groups?", 
 >> >> or, "what's wrong with discussing bonds in those groups?"  What 
 >> >> are the main groups this topic gets discussed? 
 >> [snip list] 
 >> 
 >> >The problem, based strictly on anecdotal observation and, inevitably, 
 >some 
 >> >subjectivity: Most regular participants in each of the above groups are 
 >> >specialized in the particular investment vehicle. When someone wants to 
 >ask 
 >> >a question about bonds, he or she typically goes to one of these groups 
 >and 
 >> >gets an answer that may reflect (1) bias; or (2) lack of study on bonds. 
 >If 
 >> >the expertise can be directed to a single group so that it's not so 
 >dilute 
 >> >by biased posters and posters with minimal expertise, then consumers with 
 >> >questions will be more likely to get a collection of "expert" responses 
 >from 
 >> >which an optimal answer may be derived. 
 >> 
 >> It wouldn't hurt to include the above in your next draft of the RFD. 
  
 >I see your point but am trying to balance it against the value of 
 >conciseness. 
  
 Conciseness at the price of understandability is not recommended. 
 Look, you've already indicated that you have NOT discussed this 
 prior to proposing it.  You are now in a position in which you 
 must explain why you are proposing the new group.  That means 
 you had better, well, explain.  You can't expect people to reasonably 
 decide on a course of action, let alone understand what's going on, 
 without you providing the fundamental bits of information that drive 
 your proposal.  And the above paragraph is much more important 
 than a lot of the traffic information you provided.  Traffic may 
 well stay where it is, but if there are issues, THOSE drive 
 new group proposals.  I'm not saying you should provide every 
 tidbit of info you have run across, but at least summarize what 
 you've found.  You'll need it to convince the readers of existing 
 groups that there are enough issues, problems, and solutions 
 that the proposed group is a good idea. 
  
 So to reiterate, this RFD is THE main source of information you 
 are providing to your voters.  This RFD is your soapbox. Make good 
 use of it. 
  
 >Also, I'm not sure that the above can't be generalized to be a part of the 
 >rationale of every newsgroup proposed here. 
  
 It can't.  There are many different reasons for creating new groups, 
 and the degree to which any given rationale can be given varies. 
 Finally, each proposal goes to a bunch of people that have NEVER 
 seen an RFD (that may well mean 99% of usenet readers).  They have 
 no clue as to what is a common reason, so you need to explain your 
 reasons a bit. 
  
 >Lastly, it's a subjective 
 >position. 
  
 Of course it's subjective.  It's supposed to be.  That's how readers 
 are.  If enough readers want some new group for whatever reason 
 (just about ANY reason) they are entitled to it.  That's part of 
 what I'm trying to get across to you.  What MANY readers FEEL are 
 are problems or issues with existing groups, and how they THINK 
 a new group will help solve those problems are just as important 
 if not moreso than traffic.  Some groups are happy with a 200 per 
 day newsgroup on one topic, and others unhappy about the volume 
 of a 50 per day gruop on another topic.  The former will not go 
 for a new group, the latter would.  It's what makes them happy 
 or not that you should focus on more. 
  
 That isn't to say traffic is irrelevant.  It actually is 
 involved in what might be wrong with an existing group 
 or situation. 
  
 [snip] 
 >> >Six of ten pass the 'at least 10 posts per day' criterion for 
 >establishing a 
 >> >new newsgroup, assuming all posts are on topic (which might be a 
 >stretch). 
 >> >So by this crude measure anyway, I think there's a fair argument that 
 >there 
 >> >are not too many misc.invest newsgroups. 
 >> 
 >> Um, I highly unrecommend trying to create a new group from a group 
 >> that has ONLY 10 postings per day.  For an alt.* group perhaps, but 
 >> not a Big-8 group.  For rec.* groups, for example, I would recommend 
 >> thinking about a split for groups above 50 postings per day, and 
 >> question the need for new groups from groups with 25 - 50 per day. 
 >> I'm not sure I would recommend differently in the other Big-8 
 >> groups.  Most of the groups above don't even meet the 25-50 per day 
 >> criterion. 
  
 >I'm not sure this is relevant to my RFD. 
  
 It is.  If the total traffic per day of all groups falls around or 
 under 50 per day, you may not have the critical mass to create 
 the new group (be it because of lack of awareness due to widely 
 distributed groups, or because there really aren't that many 
 readers of the subject).  There is also a concern that if you 
 are taking away large amounts of discussions from low volume 
 groups (less than 20 per day), you will damage those groups, 
 and THOSE readers could very likely vote NO.  It's really tough 
 getting the required 110+ votes, so any additional NO votes can 
 easily kill your proposal. 
  
 [snip] 
 >All points noted. 
  
 >Seems to me I can either withdraw this RFD (and its subsequent CFV) or see 
 >how it floats now. If the powers that be here don't object, I'd like to give 
 >it a shot. 
  
 Oh for sure, keep going.  There's little reason for you to withdraw 
 unless you find you have a great deal of opposition, or observe 
 "palpable apathy".  You may wish to run the RFD a bit longer than 
 the times stated in the Guidelines (most proposals do, in the normal 
 course of events) simply by not submitting the Proponent Questionaire 
 for a couple weeks longer. 
  
 >> >> >CHARTER: misc.invest.bonds 
 >> >> 
 >> >> >misc.invest.bonds is a place to post about and discuss bonds. Since 
 >> >> 
 >> >> Should you write "discuss investment bonds"? 
 >> 
 >> >I agree that's cleaner, but it omits the poster who just wants to post an 
 >> >informational point and does not want to discuss it. 
 >> 
 >> No, I mean changing "bonds" to "investment bonds". 
  
 >Given the name of the proposed newsgroup (misc.INVEST. etc.), I think this 
 >is redundant. 
  
 Now you are getting lazy.  Even if the title of an article mentions 
 a term, it is best to lay it out in the main text anyways.  Remember, 
 the CHARTER may be used later on as a reference, and it doesn't 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)