From: ngse18@castle.ed.ac.uk (J R Evans)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: sci.geo.eosdis is badly flawed. Please withdraw CFV.
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:33:39 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: Edinburgh University


The possibility of disseminating EOS data product announcements 
through Usenet channels is strongly welcomed.  However, as outlined
below, the proposal for establishment of a newsgroup sci.geo.eosdis
for this purpose is badly flawed.  I call on the proposers to 
withdraw the current Call For Votes and urge them to enter discussion
with the sci.geo community on the most appropriate way to achieve 
their objective.

The proposal is flawed because:

 * In its present form, the group would be a channel for advertising
   solely the EOS range of data products; this is no more acceptable
   within the sci heirarchy than a group for advertising new products 
   from IBM or DEC would be within the comp heirarchy.
   
 * Previous discussion on the development of the sci.geo heirarchy
   within existing groups has indicated a clear consensus that a
   high degree of speciation should be avoided at the current stage 
   of its development.  This proposal is at odds with that consensus.
   
 * The possibility of a group for discussion of all aspects of remote
   sensing has been previously discussed within the sci.geo groups.
   On those occasions, the proposal has been felt to be sound but
   not timely.  A formal proposal for such a group will certainly 
   emerge sooner rather than later, and would encompass the area of
   the present proposal.
   
 * The undue prominence of this group within the sci.geo heirarchy 
   will hamper its development.  The accent on product announcements
   blurs the distinction between Usenet and the 'bulletin boards'
   operated by many earth science organisations. It will make Usenet 
   participation appear less attractive to many earth scientists and 
   their managements.
   
A few notes:

Data product marketing is very much the key concept in earth science
management at present.  This is particularly true here in Europe
where a highly competitive market in space data products and related
services already exists.  Any senior manager asked to review a
proposal for his organisation's participation in Usenet will take one
look at this charter and say "Can we have a parallel channel to
advertise our products?"  Consider!  

The need for a separate group for this purpose has not been 
established.  EOS is of interest to most earth science workers. 
It may well be that sci.geo readers would be happy to see the
announcements posted within the existing groups.  They haven't yet
been asked.

The need for moderation has not been established.  Existing sci.geo
groups have had no significant problem with interlopers (one 
slightly eccentric poster to sci.geo.meteorology is all that comes
to mind).  The *requirement* that the moderator be a member of the
staff of the EOS office is particularly strange.  If there is a
genuine intention to stimulate discussion, and moderation is felt
appropriate, it would surely be better if the moderator were *not*
a member of the EOS staff! 

Some of the above difficulties could be obviated by extending the
charter so that it was wider than the EOS range of data products.
But do we really want a group primarily centred on (say) spoace 
data product announcements?  If discussion were fully encouraged,
the result would be a remote sensing group in all but name, so
why not call it that to begin with?

To recap: it would be helpful to be able to receive information
about EOS and its products through Usenet, but there is no
apparent need to set up a restricted newsgroup solely for this
purpose.  The original Request For Discussion was not circulated
to the existing sci.geo community.  I suggest that the present
proposal should be withdrawn and the sci.geo readership offered
the opportunity to discuss how best to proceed.


Russ Evans
British Geological Survey, Edinburgh      e_gs18@ub.nmh.ac.uk

Usual disclaimers apply.