Irene Waters  wrote: 
 > wrote 
 >snip but suggestions read 
 >> The problem with dead 
 >> groups?  We can't get rid of them (no mechanism for it) 
  
 >The Guidelines for Big 8 Newsgroup Creation, routinely posted here, say 
 >otherwise: 
  
 >"3. A proposal must consist of one or more of the following changes to Big 
 >    Eight newsgroups:  Create a new newsgroup, remove an existing 
 >    newsgroup (by subsuming it into an existing group)... " 
  
 Note "by subsuming it" is not a simple removal.  Proposals 
 of this sort have the same requirement as a creation proposal: 
 you have to find 110+ people willing to vote YES to removal. 
 And they are intented for consolidating topic spaces, not 
 removing them. 
  
 If a group is dead, the voters won't be coming from it.  There 
 probably wouldn't even be a proponent for a removal proposal. They 
 would have to come from one of the groups willing to subsume 
 the topic space (and thus any relevant traffic).  If the group 
 is created by votes from non-usenet voters, they won't be there 
 for the subsumption vote.  Thus, in the situation under discussion, 
 Para.3. very likely wouldn't work.  That being said, a future 
 proponent could take it upon themselves to try to push for a 
 renaming of the group into something they think will work better. 
 There could be a battle in that, as it takes fewer opposition 
 votes to sink a proposal than supporting votes. 
  
 Alternatives, none.  We have an early proposal for a general 
 process for removing dead groups, but we simply haven't been able 
 to get very far towards implementing anything like it.  Issues 
 like "what constitutes a dead group?", "what kind of vote 
 criteria?", and "how do we get all the ISPs on board?" require 
 significant consideration.  And the folks who would have to 
 implement it, have higher priority stuff to deal with. 
  
 Oh, regarding that ISP "on board" issue, it's a problem. 
 Right now, ISPs are loath to honor "remove" requests due to past 
 super-abuses of fake remove requests.  So even if Para.3. 
 suceeded, ISPs may not actually remove the group anyways, 
 which brings a different set of headaches (like folks 
 suggesting posting in a "non-existing" group for more info). 
  
 The way I see it, it is better to get reliable voters and 
 fail, than get a majority of voters that won't read the group 
 and pass.  With the former, you know where you stand and can 
 try it again after working out what needs to be done. 
  
 So, you (the collective "you") should to try within reason to 
 do it right from the outset. 
  
 ru 
  
 -- 
 My standard proposals rant: 
 Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic 
 is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup. 
 Usenet popularity is the primary consideration. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)