From: jns@elea.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: soc.motss.*
Summary: the motss rainbow
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:53:32 GMT
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyles, Inc.


I am feeling rather reactionary about the idea of splitting
soc.motss.  I think the reason is simple, too.  I found
it the way it was, I read it, I liked it, so I started
participating.  [A simplified version of what happened.]
Frankly, I like the stream of consciousness feel, and I
think some proposals for splitting erroneously treat
soc.motss as a collection of articles, and not as a group
of people.

Nevertheless, I concede that keeping up takes more time
than I have to spend, although I enjoy every moment.
[Complaints like this remind me of the pseudo-lover:  
"I love you a great deal, of course, but I just don't have
the time...."]  Also, it appears that the move to split
is gaining momentum.

I have two proposals.  Both are quite serious [I say that
now in case my discussion makes it sound otherwise], and
I could be happy with either.  I have a strong preference
for the first one [and am willing to defend it], somewhat 
less so for the second.

The only one I've heard so far that I *really* like is
that of Michael Pettersen (msp@phsyique.ens.fr) who
suggested that we create

> soc.motss.a 
> soc.motss.b 
> soc.motss.c 
> soc.motss.d

I accept completely his line of reasoning [it makes *me*
think of the _Physical Review_, which, when traffic gets
too heavy, simply creates another section], and suggest
that this proposal be considered seriously.

The arbitrary division will not appeal to minute-managers
who like everything in tidy packages, stamped with
instructions for how to deal with it in the minimum time,
but I think it would do the most to preserve the soc.motss
flavor and, to echo Michael, create breathing room for
everyone and reduce the traffic without removing vitality.
His point that it could ease the inevitable friction
between people is well made, and it could be refreshing
to move from group to group occasionally.  I strongly
prefer this approach to a split.

***Serious Proposal #1***

The only thing I don't like about Michael's proposal is
the suggested names, although the fact that the names
for each group are arbitrary is vital to the scheme.
Therefore I propose, supposing that four new groups is
the best number for the moment, that we create:

soc.motss.red 
soc.motss.orange 
soc.motss.green 
soc.motss.blue

This naming scheme I feel has a certain symbolism, evoking
the image of the rainbow which has become a symbol of
the LGBO* movement, while at the same time each name is
indisputably arbitrary, giving each group a chance to
form its own personality _ab initio_.  The nomenclature
is simple enough that it could be expanded at a future
date if necessary, without altering the basic sense.  I
find these names a bit more useful too for making remarks
like "did you see so&so over in s.m.blue?"  Arbitrary,
yet the names [rather than the letters] have more potential
to become attached to a group personality, working as a
mnemonic device.

I know that this approach to reorganization is unconventional
by current usenet standards, but then, we in soc.motss are 
nothing if not unconventional.

Moving on brings me to consider, as a starting point,
Jess's (anderson@macc.wisc.edu) suggested four-part split:

> soc.motss.coping 
> soc.motss.politics 
> soc.motss.politics.documents 
> soc.motss.misc

Without commenting on the name "coping" [I find "misc"
rather more objectional, vaguely perjorative, actually],
I agree with those who have pointed out that s.m.coping
and s.m.misc could, and indeed should, really remain one
entity.  Realize that this is the core of the soc.motss
personality, the exchange of ideas interlaced with puns
and dish, the sacred and the profane.   The dishing tends
to be controversial, but I like it, and I don't think
it's possible to create soc.motss.dish by itself, lest
it degenerate into nothing *more* than statements about
attractive people.  [Note that the cocktail party chitchat,
the dish, the puns, will almost *never* start by themselves,
but grow from some other article.  Take away the nutrients
and the seeds will never sprout.]

I thought at one point that perhaps soc.motss.cocktail
would capture the spirit, but maybe the name is too
bizarre.  In the end, I think that the best name for 
this diverse aspect of the group is the one it's always had:

soc.motss

This name has the virtue of keeping a focus during the
split, of not attempting to categorize its content any
more than is suggested by its historic connotation, *and*
of keeping alive a now somewhat historic name.

Which brings us to just what is it exactly that needs or
wants to split?  The usual discussion seems always to
suggest the need only for two groups:

soc.motss 
soc.motss.relevant

Blech!  No one will ever agree on what is "relevant",
and for good reason.  So why the persistent call for new
groups?

In thinking about the complaint "I have to wade through
so much to find what I'm looking for" [which is difficult
to define clearly], I don't think this is *really* the
complaint.  Consider a technical newsgroup--we know that
if indeed all one's interested in is, say, printer cables,
it's quite easy to find that in the group of interest.
And haven't you noticed that the same people who dish
are the same ones who discuss political activism are the
same ones who bring us news items of interest?  So what's
the problem here?

I think the real problem is that many of us *want* to
read everything, and just can't justify the time, can't
quite bring ourselves to ruthless killing of articles.
And so [rather like term limits] we look for an artificial
way to limit our activity.  That's why I have a strong
preference for my first proposal above.

Otherwise we come down to looking for those topics which
are atomic enough that we can yank them out of soc.motss
without doing serious damage.  Obviously there are about
as many of these as there are people who post.  [Two that
come to mind as being necessary at the moment are
soc.motss.meta--for discussing what should be discussed--and
soc.motss.stealth--for discussing why women don't post,
moderated to allow women posters only, of course.]

There are really only two categories I can see that might
make sense to separate, or rather to allow a separate
existence that might make sense.  [Seeing these as
*additions* to soc.motss instead of *reorganizing*
soc.motss creates less of a feeling of schism and lends
itself to creating additional new groups as needs can be
identified.]

One is soc.motss.info.  I agree with its partisans
that it's a good, inclusive name.  Speaking against
soc.motss.documents, or soc.motss.announce or some such,
phobe alerts, news items, announcements of rallys,
political actions, square-dance fly-ins, film festivals...,
all of these things could be conveniently contained.  It
makes sense, too, that it should be moderated.

Beyond that, the only category that I can find that I
think it makes sense to separate is discussion of political
activism and associated topics.  For those, or anyone or
all, when they are in the mood to plan tactics, discuss
strategy, and coordinate ideas, I can see that it makes
sense to have room set aside for rather serious, focussed
discussion.  I would like to see it be defined with a
broader rather than narrower scope, and I'm of two minds
about a name.

Soc.motss.politics I think is *not* a good idea.  It
sounds too much like talk.politics.misc.  It's meant to
be LGBO* safe-space [as are all the soc.motss elements],
so I would suggest soc.motss.activism or soc.motss.advocacy
[unfortunately, soc.motss.recruit is clearly out!].  Of
the two I like "advocacy" better, partly to distinguish
it clearly from alt.activism, partly because it is clearer
about the perspective of the group, but I'm probably
willing to defer to those who find that "activism" would
better suggest the purpose of the group.

***Serious Proposal #2***

So, although I don't really like the idea of topical
reorganization, and urge that we move in the direction
that I outlined in Serious Proposal #1, I think that a
good case can be made for

soc.motss 
soc.motss.advocacy  [or  soc.motss.activism]
soc.motss.info [moderated]

I'm sure I've forgotten to make some of the arguments
that I wanted to, but these are my thoughts at the moment.

--jns