From: jhildeb1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Jeff Hildebrand)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: hildebra@math.wisc.edu (Jeff Hildebrand)
Organization: Don's Merry Horde of Topologists

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> Because as a consequence, rec.music.synth is about to be renamed to
> rec.music.makers.synth.  Had you spent (literally) ten or fifteen
> seconds reading any of the RFD or three CFVs, then you wouldn't be in
> this situation.

	How far would you say that someone should read before coming to a
conclusion about a CFV? Would reading the first screen be enough? This is
not a rhetorical question. What follows in the first 20 lines of the CFV:

Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
an existing group.  Extensive discussion on these topics has resulted
in three draft proposals, of which this is the most recent.

Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.
Charter: "Electric and acoustic guitar techniques and equipment"

Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass.
Charter: "Upright bass and bass guitar techniques and equipment"

Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature.
Charter: "Guitar tablature/chords, associated discussion and requests".

Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
Charter: "Percussion (including drums) techniques and equipment"


	Now given that most newsreaders have a few lines at the top with
header information, I think most people would see 20 or fewer lines on the
first screen. Not once in these 20 lines in rec.music.synth mentioned by
name. Unless you were reading very carefully and picked up the part of a
sentence mentioning that there was a renaming of an existing rec.music
group, the entire screen looks like the CFV is about moving groups from the
alt hierarchy to the rec hierarchy. Thus I certainly don't think it would be
unreasonable for someone to conclude on the basis of this that the
cross-post was merely to attract the interest of other people, not because
it directly affected the group. (For example it might be trying to get the
attention of people who don't get the alt groups.)

> If rec.woodworking had been moved to rec.crafts.woodworking long
> enough ago, we could have saved an inordinate amount of bandwidth in
> the rec.*.metalworking discussion.  Keeping an organized hierarchy is
> a Good Thing.

	I agree with you here. Sooner or later I'm going to at least raise
the topic of moving rec.arts.drwho to rec.arts.sf.drwho but not right now. I
feel no desire to further myself as a lightning rod right now.

	And once again, I'll say this: including renamings with new groups
creations seems to be a very bad idea and should be done seperately in the
future.

-Jeff
-- 
Jeff Hildebrand, The Shaggy TA			hildebra@math.wisc.edu
"Join that political superman, secret agent double 0 zero, George Bosh
in his new film, 'Never Just Say No Again.'"      Off The Cuff, R.I.P.
"Did everyone buy that? Good, 'cause I didn't"   The Proof By Snow Job
Xref: sparky news.groups:20919 news.admin.policy:248 rec.music.synth:18136