Joe Bernstein  wrote: 
  
 >In article ,  wrote: 
  
 >> Really, the bottom line (for better rationales) is how much readers 
 >> feel the need for a new group, and why they feel the group is or 
 >> is not needed.  The lack of centralization, or of the existence, of a 
 >> topic that is discussed widely is a bit weaker (possibly a lot 
 >> weaker) if you don't know if the readers feel there is significant 
 >> improvement that would come from a proposed related group.  It's 
 >> all about the readers and what they want. 
  
 >With all due respect, there is no law against finding out what they 
 >want by doing an RFD.  It's true that RFDs can be greeted hostilely 
 >in cases where they appear to be some sort of stealth stunt by an 
 >outsider, but I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the case 
 >here.  And the lack of centralisation is a strong case if put the 
 >way she put it above.  "Threads on bonds don't go as they should 
 >because there's no central place for them" *precludes* the argument 
 >"Threads on bonds are drowning the stocks group".  There's no reason 
 >why the latter argument should be the only good one for the creation 
 >of a group. 
  
 I didn't even imply it was the only good one.  I stated that the 
 more relevant arguements are the ones that the intended readership 
 indicate.  We can see the discussions are not centralized, but we 
 don't know from this RATIONALE if that's the way they like it, 
 or if they also consider this state of affairs a problem.  Until 
 the discussion had started, this was not clear.  Including her 
 followup in the RFD would help make her case. 
  
 >> It's too late to tell you now, but for other prospective proponents, 
 >> it is highly recommended that one works on support BEFORE submitting 
 >> the RFD.  There are at least two reasons.  1) you get feedback from 
 >> the intended readers that can help better define a group and, more 
 >> importantly, improve the proposal.  2) It can be difficult finding 
 >> the necessary support (especially if there is significant opposition); 
 >> campaigning during RFD is fine, but it is frowned upon during the 
 >> vote, so STARTING on support during the RFD can be too late for 
 >> some proposals. 
  
 >I don't want to deny any of this, but I see no evidence that this 
 >proponent's failure to do a pre-RFD has in fact done any harm. 
  
 I did state the above was directed at prospective proponents. 
  
 >> >I proposed this based on reading a few of the misc.invest newsgroups and 
 >> >seeing a lot of newby bond investors come ask questions at them. 
 >> 
 >> You need feedback.  You'll get some now, but it would have been more 
 >> help to you had you solicited feedback before the RFD. 
  
 >WHY?  She's already promising to make changes based on your questions, 
 >even the ones that I read as ignorant questions.  (I'm *stunned* at 
 >the idea that a misc.invest.* group would need a definition of 
 >"bond" in its charter.)  Why is feedback before the RFD better than 
 >heeded feedback after the RFD?  Can you point me to any specific 
 >reason? 
  
 Sure.  Because we of news.groups ARE ignorant.  If there are 
 problems with topic coverage, definitions, readership policies 
 (e.g. towards binaries, commercial postings), WE DON'T KNOW 
 THEM.  If there are advantages to certain charter inclusions 
 for that readership, WE DON'T KNOW THEM.  If only one person, 
 from news.groups, is making suggestions and the proponent 
 doesn't have the benefit of prior arguments (preferably 
 with a large support base), they can't defend themselves 
 properly.  I suspect that is one reason why some of my ignorant 
 suggestions are making their way in. 
  
 Also, our job as news.group readers (insofar as we can call 
 it a job) is to deal with technical aspects of proposing new 
 newsgroups, to provide perspectives that come from outside (at 
 times, way outside) that proponents, supporters and the 
 readership in question overlook simply because they are ignorant 
 of usenet workings or because they take certain things for 
 granted which may not work in the process or for the new group. 
  
 >Note that if she makes enough changes that she needs a second RFD 
 >before the vote, that means she gets *more* opportunities for 
 >publicity and a *longer* time for it to operate.  So the only 
 >practical difference it makes would seem to work in her favour. 
  
 >Seriously, I want to know.  Why this insistence on pre-RFDs? 
  
 I didn't say anything about pre-RFDs.  I suggested starting 
 discussions beforehand, particularly as a means of input 
 during the writing of the RFD.  Sure, the proponent has as 
 much time to do this in the RFD stage, but apart from 
 psychological considerations, a proposal can benefit from 
 discussions unfettered by an imposed structure.  Like it or 
 not, we've imposed structure on what used to be an open 
 scheme, and while that structure helps to keep things organized 
 and (arguably) more reliable, it also means that we've put 
 a damper on unformatted discussions.  The RFD provides a 
 highly summarized (often overly so, as is the case here) 
 perspective which is not as conducive to discussions as 
 a posting that goes more along the lines of "look, here 
 are some problems my friends and I see... what do you think, 
 what else would you say... do you think a new group would 
 work?"  We've imposed restrictions (some due to misunderstanding 
 of the Guidelines) on where discussions should take place, 
 which means potential supporters don't see the convincing 
 arguements or shoot down the bad ideas.  The text forces 
 readers to distinguish rationale from policy (which doesn't 
 seem to come naturally, as we see often in proposals). 
 Proponents often leave out points that otherwise come up 
 in discussions elsewhere (which are then provided only by 
 our prompting, not by supporters volunteering the information). 
 And that's before the considering psychological (and for 
 the most part illusory) concerns like trying to stay on the 
 outlined timetable, or the converse "it's out of our hands 
 because its now being processed".  That so far the proponent 
 has only had you, a news.groups regular, as a defender suggests 
 this structure has a damping effect on the necessary discussion. 
  
 The RFD and the process are fine for the final steps of creating 
 a new group, but they aren't that great for starting it. 
  
 [snip] 
 >> You may know what a bond is, but the group isn't just for you. 
 >> "Concise" isn't concise if the subject isn't known.  An extra sentence 
 >> or two won't hurt. 
  
 >I don't think I've ever seen this standard news.groups advice so 
 >thoroughly misapplied.  It's a pity this proponent is so respectful; 
 >if she had stomped on this line of thinking sooner, you wouldn't 
 >have gotten your foot so far into your mouth, and I wouldn't have 
 >to be so rude. 
  
 I don't see how else you can make your points.  That being said, 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)