Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.panix6.panix.com!nan.users.panix.com!robomod!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,news.groups.proposals
Subject: Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?
Followup-To: news.groups.proposals
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:35:37 EDT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Approved: NGP Approval Key <ngp-approval-key@ngp.big-8.org>
Message-ID: <vqmviu$pki$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com> <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com> <vqmuec$1cs4o$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix6.panix.com:166.84.1.6";
	logging-data="2553"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-NGP-Policy: http://www.big-8.org/~ngp
X-NGP-Info-1: Send submissions to              ngp@nan.users.panix.com
X-NGP-Info-2: Send technical/policy queries to ngp-admin@nan.users.panix.com
X-Comment: Moderators do not necessarily agree or disagree with this article.
X-Robomod: STUMP <https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/stump>
X-Spam-Relay-Country: DE US US
X-Spam-DCC: www.nova53.net: mailcrunch2.panix.com 1206; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=spitfire.i.gajendra.net
Authentication-Results: mail2.panix.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=panix.com
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
X-Auth: PGPMoose V2.0 PGP news.groups.proposals
 iEYEARECAAYFAmfPWykACgkQrPkQbuk9hdtyrwCgm85/f3enZ1CvKZJmjM4cotg9
 oVAAn3C5As80yZJm+J5jltsHE1GsnDwl
 =v45B
Bytes: 3562
Lines: 45

[Note: follows once again set to news.groups.proposals]

In article <vqmuec$1cs4o$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 10/03/2025 14:32, Dan Cross wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Topicality is part of the reason the Big-8 guidance for
>> introducing these discussions recommends cross-posting to groups
>> where the topic comes up semi-regularly, but setting follow ups
>> to news.groups.proposals, as I had done, and have done again
>> here.  ;-)
>
>You will no doubt be aware that this discussion has already 
>fragmented over three groups (follow-ups are not everyone's cup 
>of tea). Presumably you will be following the discussion in all 
>of those groups?

I will attempt to do so, yes.

Perhaps people dislike Followup-To; to that, I say that it is
unfortunate that people do not want to follow what seems like a
reasonable and a well-defined process.  See e.g.,
https://www.big-8.org/wiki/How_to_Create_a_New_Big-8_Newsgroup,
specifically this text from the section titled, "Informal
Discussion":

|The proponent of the newsgroup ought to cross-post the idea to
|other, relevant newsgroups in addition to
|news.groups[.proposals]. In these crossposts, followups should
|be directed to news.groups[.proposals] so that discussion of
|the idea is confined to a single location. This makes it easier
|for interested parties to follow the entire discussion in one
|place, and for uninterested parties to avoid the discussion.

Clearly the initial cross-posting guidance from Big-8 is meant
to encourage letting potentially interested parties know that
the discussion is happening in news.groups.proposals as a
courtesy to those that do not regularly read news.groups.*, not
as a way to split the discussion $n$ different ways.  In that
context, I can't think of a good reason to ignore the followup
header.

	- Dan C.