From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.crafts.metalworking
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:28:18 GMT
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.

In article <1992Oct14.154041.262@news.uwyo.edu> jimkirk@news.uwyo.edu writes:
>I would like to propose a change of name for the proposed newsgroup
>rec.crafts.metalworking, to simply rec.metalworking.  Apparently,

I disagree.  Reasons below.

>1.  I note that, at least on our system, there are 3 "crafts" groups
>    and 306 non-crafts groups.  Not an overwhelming response to the
>    new rules.  On the other hand, the rules are relatively new.

There are always exceptions to the rules, usually groups created before the
rules.  Often those groups are the reason for the rules (sci.aquaria, for
example)

>2.  Symmetry with the strongly-related group rec.woodworking.  Unless of
>    course they decide to change to rec.crafts.woodworking.  Perhaps
>    they get to be grandfathered, being an old group?

If there is a rec.crafts,metalworking, there might be enough reason to change
the group.

>3.  The existing group is trial.rec.metalworking, not
>    trial.rec.crafts.metalworking.  All we want to really do is dump
>    the "trial."  It has been pointed out, though, that the rules
>    have changed since the trial group was formed, hence "crafts."

'Nuff said.  trial.* was an experiment that has ended, and the organization,
or lack thereof, under trial.* is not a binding force.

>4.  In e-mail, some have complained to me that "crafts" is a demeaning
>    add-on, implying the group is for discussion of things like how to
>    weld five beer cans together into the shape of a schnauzer, and the
>    like.  Metalworking is considered (by those I have corresponded with)
>    a technical art, a profession, and/or a high skill.  Handwork is
>    craft, machine work is not.

I feel that this is a myopic attitude.  A craft is anything that produces
something intended for use.  It can be quite complex, like forging a suit
of armor, but the product is intended for *use*.  'Craftsman' is hardly an
insulting term.

>As a more general point, I wonder if the further pigeon-holing of
>newsgroups is like the US' failed attempt to go metric.  Nobody seemed
>to want it, and nobody was forced to convert, so it failed.  Likewise,
>if older groups are not "forced" into the new scheme, their sheer number
>will likely cause the new naming to fail, because there are more exceptions
>than proper names, and in the end nobody will care.  Susan B Anthony dollars
>also come to mind.  Why give us something we don't want?

I don't exactly understand the allusion to the USA and metric....

The reasons for a well-defined structure on the Usenet groups are A) to allow
folks to find the group easily, without having to wade through a lot of 
description (rec.metalworking does this as well as r.c.m); and to cluster the
similar groups so that people interested in similar things can find them close
by (r.c.m works better, assuming we get woodworking into it, and any others
that apply).  Why do we have rec.arts.tv.*?  To group all the TV-related groups
into one clump, making it easier to find them.

>More specific to metalworking, it is my impression that if the discussion
>comes to a consensus that "crafts" be dropped, we might get away with it
>(even though it is contrary to current guidelines).

I dislike this, just because the guidelines have been hammered into their
present shape after a LOT of work, getting them to a shape that is acceptable
to many people.


-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: news.groups