TK Sung  wrote: 
  
 >"Joe Bernstein"  wrote in message 
 >news:blb1gi$bpo$1@reader2.panix.com... 
 >> 
 >> 1) it gets enough votes; 
 >> 
 >I don't think anybody will disagree with that.  But proven traffic is the 
 >best evidence of the existence of enough bona fide interest, imo, assuming 
 >that there already are existing channels for the traffic.  Lacking that, the 
 >next best evidence would be the proof that there are enough birds of a 
 >feather through the voting process.   (Of course, proven traffic is not a 
 >sufficient reason for a new group either, so it'll still require voting no 
 >matter what). 
  
 The degree of interest is not really the primary component of 
 a RATIONALE.  Why that interest is there is more valuable.  Sure, 
 a RATIONALE that says there's a huge number of interested readers 
 says something about why the group is even being attempted, but 
 the reasons those folks are so interested may not make sense 
 or actually not be practical.  Now in the process of finding out 
 all this information, one may find how much interest there really 
 is, and if the response to queries is poor, it would tell the 
 proponent that they need to work harder at convincing people. 
 But such analyses are not about simply getting stats, rather 
 they are for helping the proponent gauge what thoughts need to 
 go into a proposal and how much work they need to do to find 
 truly interested readers. 
  
 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)