From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:36:58 GMT

lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>>> I have yet to see anything explain why this renaming is a bad thing in
>>> general.  [Lazlo]

Because the name change was perceived as arbitrary by some people who
happened to be good contributors to r.m.s...and they dropped out completely
rather than take on who I appear to be taking on. Who lost? R.m.s.

If you can truly say that you'd condone that happening in your favorite 
newsgroup, then by all means argue away...but we won't have much in common. 

>I'll be a lot more impressed with your complaints when you get around to
>actually answering that question.  I'll do you the courtesy of answering
>*yours*, but if you can't answer *mine* you don't have a leg to stand on
>in this discussion.

Don't be impressed. Just consider what I have to say. 

>rec.music.synth is a "broken" groupname because it's in the wrong place in
>the rec.music hierarchy.  The name of the group, in context, implies that
>the group is for the discussion of synthesizer music, when in fact it's
>used to discuss synth hardware.  

Acutally, the problem with putting it in "makers" is the fact that it
robs keyboard and piano players from getting their own group. They
are music makers too, but when you newsgroup naming purists get wind
of any RFD for that you'll point and scream about rec.music.makers.synth.

And...the problem with "synth" is that r.m.s also discussed music software,
effects boxes, midi routers, drum machines, and a host of other things not 
related specifically to synths themselves. r.m.m.midi would be much more
appropriate. However...

...because it was gatewayed in places and because it had a great character
I would still have voted NO and supported leaving the name alone. Cleaning
up the namespace is all well and good, but not at the expense of those
who use it. 

>I know from painful experience that there are a lot of people on the net
>who are more interested in keeping everything the way it is than in
>keeping things organized.   

I agree with you that it is better to organize information. 

>I don't give a damn what the people who say "no" just for the sake of
>saying "no" think anymore.  Your insistence on keeping the books on the
>shelves where you've always found them instead of on the shelves where
>they actually *belong* is unbelievably selfish 

Not at all. I personally have no problem finding anything I want to find,
mislocated or no. My problem is with the destruction of a perfectly wonderful
group of people sharing about a specific topic. Organization is not worth
it. 

>a feed with one.  And it hurts absolutely *nobody*.

It has already hurt a lot of people. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

"Quick, we must do something! A monkey has picked up a knife!"
"Don't worry," said a wise man, "so long as it was not a *man*."
The monkey had, sure enough, thrown the knife away.