Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?

[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.