Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"

[ichudov@algebra.com]

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup,
> > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different
> > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks,
> > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that.
> > >
> > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages
> > >over an alt.* newsgroup:
> > >
> > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.*
> > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars
> > >3) The propagation will be a lot better
> > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers
> > >   not carrying alt.*.
> > >
> > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup  worse than
> > >alt.* newsgroup.
> > 
> > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating
> > "alt.cypherpunks."
> > 
> > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission
> > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever
> > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the
> > ground.
> > 
> > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the
> > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the
> > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that
> > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew
> > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of
> > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.)
> > 
> (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've
> had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, 
> I posted
> the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.)
> 
> Random thoughts:
> 
> 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of
> corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that
> soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-)
> Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate
> newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their
> firewall lets them.)

> 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup.
> It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help
> with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet
> newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-)

Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: 
a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process
ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups
of readers.

I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is
not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or
less flame-free zone.

It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a
prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help
them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage.

> 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing
> list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire
> by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read
> to other people. 

It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better.

> Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the
> network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very
> handy. 
> 

It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work 
independently from list nodes.

	- Igor.