From: strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.scouting.activities, rec.scouting.policy
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:56:39 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Research

In article <BuMopt.3B2@uunet.uu.net>, macman@bernina.ethz.ch (Danny Schwendener) writes:
|> This is the first official call for discussion on the reorganization of 
|> rec.scouting into rec.scouting.activities and rec.scouting.policy. 
|> 
|> Discussions in rec.scouting so far have gone into two very distinct 
|> directions, as much in the content of the messages as in their nature. 
|> The first category englobes messages of 'technical' nature, 
|> suggestions of activities, etc, while messages of the second category 
|> are podium discussions on the policies and political directions of
|> Scouting Movement organizations.
|> 
|> Comments in rec.scouting and other parented newsgroups and mailing 
|> lists repeatedly raised the point that the two categories tend to
|> get each other in the way. The suggested split (one newsgroup for
|> each of the two categories) should lift the current confusion 
|> and allow more and better contributions in both categories.
|> 

As far as I can tell, the traffic on rec.scouting is very
small.  The two categories do not get in each other's way.

My opinion is that the only reason for the proposal to split is that
there has been a collection of postings critical of certain
Boy Scouts of America policies which exclude gays
and atheists from membership as scouts and from positions
of leadership.  Discussions of these issues, with their
overtones of accusation of bigotry from one side, and
accusation of immorality from the other side, have
been more heated than discussions of other topics, such
as what songs to sing while roasting marshmallows.
These discussions have also occasionally branched out
into general discussions of gay rights, religious
freedom, etc., and have been crossposted to other
groups.

I don't think that the fact that some topics are controversial
and that some folks would prefer not to hear the controversy
is sufficient to split up a low-traffic newsgroup.

I also don't think that anybody really cares about the
subject matter split with respect to any other threads
besides discrimination in BSA.  For example, does anybody
really care to enforce that discussions of folk songs
must stay in .activities and discussions of merit badge
requirements must stay in .policy so that they
don't "get in each other's way"?

I will vote against the split.  I will try to make
sure that discussions about the discrimination controversy
remain focussed on scouting.  I would recommend
that those who don't want to read the postings about
discrimination pass over them or use a "kill" file.
I would recommend that people discussing discrimination
in scouts avoid crossposting, and especially that
they avoid broadening the discussion.
I don't see anything broken in rec.scouting that
needs fixing, and will urge fellow readers
to vote "no".

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: news.groups