XPost: rec.woodworking 
  
 In news.groups John McCoy  wrote: 
 >ru.igarashi@usask.ca wrote in news:chnljh$i45$2@tribune.usask.ca: 
  
 >>   The issue 
 >> at hand is whether an existing topic space, with existing readership, 
 >> can be made usable (again) 
  
 >You have slightly jumped the gun here, ru.  The question of whether 
 >the existing topic space is unusable has not been determined (and 
 >I would say the evidence is that the current group is very usable, 
 >hence the trend to oppose creating a .mod group). 
  
 Ultimately, that is what this proposal would determine if it is 
 followed through.  If there are enough people that vote for it's 
 creation, then that would indicate that enough people think the 
 existing group is not usable and that the proposed group should 
 be created.  Basically, that's what matters most, barring 
 moderation issues.  So in some sense, whether the existing 
 group is considered usable or not by a majority is irrelevant. 
  
 It doesn't hurt to have an idea of what the consensus is beforehand, 
 but generally that's to gauge what to write in the proposal 
 rather than if the proposal should go forward.  In the face of 
 great opposition, yes, a proponent may consider withdrawing. 
 But I don't consider lack of interest or lack of need to be 
 adequate reasons to oppose a proposal... lack of YES votes should 
 take care of that.  When I say opposition, I mean views along the 
 lines of the proposed group adversely affecting the readership of 
 the proposed group because of the way the proposal is composed, 
 or will adversely affect existing groups.  Generally, if there 
 is a segment of usenet readers that want a group to read about 
 a topic with more focus or specialization, then opposers should 
 seriously consider if they are trying to prevent others from 
 creating a group of their own, and why.  The converse is also 
 true, though; supporters should also seriously consider if they 
 are trying to help others get their group or help themselves 
 get their group (the former isn't really appropriate, while the 
 latter is), and why. 
  
 Having said all that, I'm waiting to hear from the proponents 
 about the moderation issues, because I think that will be their 
 stumbling block. 
  
 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)