From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Subject: Re: Major reorganization of rec.radio.amateur.misc
Originator: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:41:58 GMT

zawodny@arbd0.larc.nasa.gov (Dr. Joseph M Zawodny) writes:

>I've been reading this news group for well over a year now and is has grown to
>a considerable size.  The number of responses is nearly 100 per day now and
>varies over a wide range of topics.  I wonder if it might not be beneficial to
>all if this group were subdivided into more focused catagories rather than
>being all lumped into one .misc group.  My recommendation is for the following
>subdivisions to replace the .misc group:

[Note:  I posted this about a week ago, but due to an incorrect
Distribution header on the original message (it was set to
"rec.radio.amateur.misc") it never propogated out.]

Hi Joe, welcome to the net, with all its benefits and foibles!  If
you've meant this one somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for taking
it "too seriously."  However, as others in the group will attest to, I
like to take the group down "memory lane" with a little summary of our
history and motivations every once in a while.

This basic idea has been argued many times, both in informal debate, and
in the last newsgroup reorganization, condected by Jay Maynard.  The main 
criticism would of course be that simply making heirarchies is no
guarantee that people will compartmentalize their thoughts to specific
newsgroups (cross-posting and "take this to **** subgroup" arguments
will abound).  We have enough trouble distinguishing between *.misc and
*.policy.

If the real reason is that you personally (or a small group of your
colleagues) don't want to read certain subjects, you might want to try
kill files, which can filter subject keywords and individuals (heck, I'm
probably in a few kill files! :-)  I would highly recommend the rn or nn
newsreaders for their ease-of-use, format of presentation, and kill
features.

There are also a few more subtle criticisms, which I will note below.

>     .technical - This group would be for the discussion of real
>                  tube/transistor and coil kind of stuff.  Projects,
>                  antennae, RFI, propogation and such might be examples
>                  of relavent topics.

Let's not forget Brian Kantor.  He gateways this newsgroup to Info-Hams
(and *.packet to Packet-Radio and *.policy to Ham-Policy).  When the
last reorganization was discussed, he made it clear that he would only
be gatewaying ONE main newsgroup (which is certainly his right, as it
makes his administration simpler) and would probably arbitrarily choose
between misc or tech (correct me if I'm wrong, Brian).

>     .consumer  - This group is for the "What do you think of ...'s rig" or
>                  "Where can I find a manual for a ..." or "Has anyone had
>                  problems mounting a ... in a ..."

I don't see how this one can be detangled from .technical, as many of
these are basic tech questions.

>     .bulletin  - Here is where all the automatically forewarded ARRL stuff,
>                  DX reports, Solar info, and Special event/contest messages
>                  would go.

There was a discussion of a rec.radio.info or rec.radio.announce
newsgroup which would be "self-moderated" such as with news.answers
or rec.music info.  It was shot down the last time it was suggested,
but it might be worth resurrecting again.

>     .ragchew   - This will be the largest of the news groups and one I will
>                  not read ;-) .  Here is where you put all your frustrations,
>                  BS, and ham related tidbits that really are not appropriate
>                  to any of the other boards.

Seems like a waste, sort of a default newsgroup to add to the
cross-posting line.  Again, you're revealing that your underlying desire
for such a newsgroup as a pre-fab kill file.

>Now if we could only get some sense of order in the world of packet!

Watch for an updated Packet FAQ.  You might also want to check some of
the speciality packet mailing lists (such as for gateways and TCP/IP)
mentioned in the FAQ.

>	Thank you for the soap box,

Most of your ideas have been suggested before, and have been declined.
Nevertheless, I would never try to stand in the way of someone
initiating a formal newsgroup creation proceeding (with a Call for
Discussion and Call for Vote).  Check out news.announce.newusers for
offical instructions.  (Although informal debate like this is certainly
meaningful, in the Usenet sense, it "doesn't count").

Remember, this is just *MY* opinion.....

73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

pschleck@unomaha.edu

(Current straw-poll results:  9-3 in favor of my washing the DJ's mouths
out with soap, at least in an electronic sense :-).


Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc