Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?

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	2025-03-10 17:35 -0400
Organization	PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID	<vqmviu$pki$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References	<vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com> <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com> <vqmuec$1cs4o$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: news.groups.proposals

Show all headers | View raw

[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.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 07:46 -0400
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 13:12 +0000
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 14:32 +0000
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 14:54 +0000
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400
      Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 15:23 +0000
        Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 15:42 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-10 17:55 +0200
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-10 10:17 -0700
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 18:33 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-10 19:23 +0100
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 18:32 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 19:05 +0000
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:11 +0000
              Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 19:22 +0000
                Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:26 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 19:54 +0000
          Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 18:34 -0700
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 15:30 -0500
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 15:33 -0500
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:56 +0000
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 22:31 +0000
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 23:29 -0500
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-12 09:09 +0000
          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 15:50 -0500

csiph-web