Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:42:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vqn19h$qai$1@reader1.panix.com>
References: <vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com> <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com> <vqn04q$6vsu$1@news.xmission.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:42:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="26962"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2344
Lines: 36

In article <vqn04q$6vsu$1@news.xmission.com>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>In article <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com>,
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>In article <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com>,
>>[snip]
>>Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>>Keith will tell you that it is off-topic here.
>>
>>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.  ;-)
>
>Note that I did not say: Your post is off-topic.

I did not say that said that you did?  ;-)

>I said: Keith will tell you that it is off-topic here.

Noted.  My post was meant to explain that I chose to implement
the guidance from the Big-8 process on new group creation, which
encourages posting to groups where interested parties may be
reading for discovery, but with follow-ups set to n.g.p to
discourage off-topic drift and fragmented discussion.

Given that the guidance is coming directly from Big-8,
complaints about topicality, from Keith or anyone else, seem
misplaced.

So far, as near as I can tell, the only person who's actually
engaged with the proposal was Tim Rentsch, who responded in
in comp.programming that he was in favor of comp.lang.rust.

	- Dan C.