From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: soc.culture.native
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 22:15:17 GMT

Ed McGuire's contribution is very valuable, I think, in that it gives
further support to Floyd Davidson's recent claim that the ".d" name is
alive and well within the Usenet newsgroup naming structure, and is *not*
being phased out in favor of ".misc" names.  Ed says that ".d" serves a
different function.

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec18165322@fuller.intellection.com>
	emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:

> *.d is used to redirect discussion away from a non-discussion group
> above it in the hierarchy.  Often the higher level group is moderated
> to enforce this.  For example,
>
> 	rec.humor.oracle
> 	rec.humor.oracle.d

(Note that Ed is *NOT* advocating that soc.culture.native be moderated,
 and neither am I, though I do in general get a better experience in my
 dealings with moderated newsgroups and those which are not moderated.)

One possibility this idea suggests is that we could have two simultaneous
votes, one for "soc.culture.{native,indigenous,aboriginal}" (once we work
out which of the three to use), and another for "soc.culture.<something>.d"
to handle the discussion.

Floyd's examples further support this idea.  For anyone who missed it,
Floyd says:

| From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
| Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
| Subject: Re: soc.culture.<whatever>.* [ native/indigenous/aboriginal ]
| Message-ID: <1992Dec19.072903.27368@raven.alaska.edu>
| Date: 19 Dec 92 07:29:03 GMT
|
| ...
|
| alt.activism.d                    alt.bbs.lists.d
| alt.binaries.pictures.d           alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.d
| alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.d  alt.binaries.sounds.d
| alt.prose.d                       alt.sex.pictures.d
| alt.sex.stories.d                 alt.sources.d
| comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d            comp.sources.d
| comp.sys.hp48.d                   misc.forsale.computers.d
| rec.humor.d                       rec.humor.oracle.d
| vmsnet.sources.d
|
| As can be seen, the reason for ".d" groups is because posts that
| would be described as "discussion" are not be appropriate in
| the related group.  Moderated or not hasn't much to do with it.

Please note that the guidelines *do* permit more than one newsgroup to
be voted on simultaneously, though there must be separate ballots for
each newsgroup:

| 7) A vote should be run only for a single group proposal.  Attempts to
|    create multiple groups should be handled by running multiple parallel
|    votes rather than one vote to create all of the groups.


Ed says further:

> Other conventions may fit the NATIVE-L and NATCHAT mailing lists
> better.  Here's a suggestion.
>
> 	soc.culture.<your-favorite>.announce (NATIVE-L)
> 	soc.culture.<your-favorite>.talk (NATCHAT)
>
> *.announce is often, but not always, a moderated group.

Well, I don't think the name ".announce" is appropriate in this case,
since the most natural function of the non-discussion newsgroup would
include the asking and answering of questions (just not back and forth
discussion and debate) as well as passing on information.  My prefer-
ence is for something like ".info" - or whatever the net-gods might
have blessed that represents that same idea.

Also, I tend to prefer having something like "soc.culture.native.info"
and "soc.culture.native.d" - since it emphasises that the first news-
group is for informational postings, but I could live with the idea of
a "soc.culture.native" being used for carrying informational articles
and the ".d" group being for discussion.  This latter idea seems to be
accepted practice, so I'd be glad to go along with it, and it does also
make easier the later elaboration of the newsgroup.  For example, we
might eventually have something like:

                    soc.culture.native
                    |                |
		american             d
		    |
		    d

(The "soc.culture.native.american" and "soc.culture.native.american.d"
newsgroups would be added later through a new voting process.)


I'd like to propose that we hold a new straw vote, to commence shortly
after people are back from their holidays, to answer some questions
that seem to be plaguing this discussion, including (but not limited
to):

     1. Should we create a new newsgroup sub-hierarchy (e.g. "soc.
	culture.native") under which regional or discussion / non-
	discussion newsgroups can be nested?

     2. Which of the names "native," "indigenous," "aboriginal" do
	we most favor for the sub-hierarchy name?

     3. What do people feel about linking the new newsgroups with
	existing NativeNet mailing lists?

     4. Does a majority of our potential voting public approve of the
	idea of initially creating two new newsgroups, one to handle
	informational postings and simple question and answer kinds of
	things, with the other newsgroup being for discussion?  (This
	idea would require two separate votes, but we have a volunteer,
	in the person of Jan Isley (hi, Jan! :-) who has conducted at
	least one successful multi-way multiple vote, which is about
	as complex as you can get (in that case, as I recall, even the
	names of the multiple newsgroups were decided in the vote itself -
	not that I advise doing so here, since it's much better to get
	those kinds of things hashed out in the course of discussion).


Here is a modified form of the sample straw vote outline I posted a few
days ago which might be used as a first draft of a new ballot:

    1. Do you feel the newsgroup(s) created as a result of a successful
       vote should be for the purpose of discussing:

       a. only the indigenous peoples of the U.S. and Canada

       b. the indigenous peoples of all the Americas

       c. the indigenous peoples of the world, including, for instance,
          the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Zealand, those of
          Siberia and those of the Scandanavian countries (the Sami),
	  those of Indonesia and Malaysia (e.g. the Penan and other abo-
	  riginal peoples of Sarawak, those of Japan (the Ainu), etc.

       d. other (please specify)

    2. If you have chosen 1 (a) or (b), would you like the group to be
       called:

       a. soc.culture.native-america

       b. soc.culture.amerind

       c. soc.culture.<something>.american
          (where "<something>" is one of {native, indigenous, aboriginal})

       d. other (please specify)


    3. If you have chosen 1 (c) or (d), or 2 (c), what would you like
       the "<something>" to be?  Would you prefer:

       a. soc.culture.native

       b. soc.culture.indigenous

       c. soc.culture.aboriginal

       d. other (please specify)


    4. Again, if you support the creation of a newsgroup hierarchy for
       information and discussion about the indigenous peoples of the
       world (not just the Americas), do you have any objections to the
       linkage between the NativeNet mailing lists NATIVE-L and/or NATCHAT
       with corresponding Usenet newsgroups?  If so, what is the nature of
       your objection?  (optional)

    5. Would you be in favor of the creation of two newsgroups initially,
       one to carry informational postings, and the other for discussion?
       (This item is especially important in linking Usenet and NativeNet
       forums.)  Would you prefer:

       a. soc.culture.<something>.info  and
          soc.culture.<something>.d

       b. soc.culture.<something>       and
          soc.culture.<something>.d

       d. other (please specify)


I hope we can get these things sorted out soon, since the RFD clock is still
ticking, and if we're going to go to the CFV phase, we have to wrap up the
discussion soon, or else go back and ponder some more.

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups