From: chip@chinacat.unicom.com (Chip Rosenthal)
Subject: austin newsgroups
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Distribution: austin
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:47:09 GMT

I believe the canonical list of current austin newsgroups is:

austin.eff		Austin, TX chapter of the EFF. (moderated)
austin.flame		Postings of the rude and abominable in Austin, TX.
austin.forsale		Items for sale in Austin, TX.
austin.general		Items of general interest to most people in Austin, TX.
austin.important	Important announcements in Austin, TX.
austin.music		Austin's greatest export product.
austin.news		News and connectivity issues in Austin, TX.
austin.news.stats	News statistics postings in Austin, TX.
austin.politics		Political discussions (and tirades) in Austin, TX.
austin.talk		General discussions in Austin, TX.
austin.test		Usenet testing in Austin, TX.

Could the local administrators review this and verify I've got it
correct?  If so, I'll submit an update to the master list of regional
newsgroups.

Note that this list excludes the austin.followup group.  I asked many
months back if this historical anachronism could be removed, and there
were no complaints.  Unless any new complaints sprout up, I'll go
ahead and issue the rmgroup.

Also note that this includes the yet-to-be created austin.eff newsgroup.

I am somewhat concerned about the current volume in austin.general.
I'm not looking to get this down to an article a week, but I think it
should be reserved for messages and announcements of general interest
to most readers.  Discussions of driving habits deserve a place on
the Austin Usenet, but I don't think austin.general is the correct
place.

Austin.talk was created to hold the ongoing, miscellaneous discussions,
and I'd like to see more traffic redirected from austin.general over
there.  Unless I'm running against the net.consensus, I'll try to pull
together a regular Welcome/FAQ type message to encourage people to
use the talk group.

In a similar vein, I'd like to encourage people to use the Followup-To
feature.  An excellent example of this is when Dewey posted the ballot
from the recent election, he pointed followups to austin.politics.
He should be commended for doing so.

I'd like to throw a couple of ideas and suggestions out for discussion.

* Nuke austin.important.  This newsgroup was created to get around
  the austin.general chatter.  I fear it is a failed experiment.  It
  was originally called austin.announce, which is a better name, but
  tickled some ill-mannered behaviour in obsolescent versions of B-news.
  I think the name of this group is intimidating, and doesn't reflect
  its supposed charter.  For example, as the current keeper of the
  CACTUS newsletter I don't feel comfortable posting the newsletter
  to a group called `important'.  So I don't, but that's exactly the
  sort of thing the group was created to hold.  Since austin.important
  isn't serving a purpose I'd just as soon get rid of it.  And preserve
  that precious namespace for more soc.culture newsgroups. :-)

* Rename austin.forsale to austin.market.  We do not have a place to
  post items wanted, items for trade, jobs available, etc. type
  messages.  I would like to see the charter of austin.forsale expanded
  and the name changed to reflect the new charter.  I envision it
  would look something like:

    austin.market	Forsale/wanted, jobs available, etc. in Austin, Tx.

  The argument against this is that austin.forsale is working well
  right now.  We don't have a place for the wanted messages, but people
  are doing a good job posting their for sale messages in austin.forsale
  instead of austin.general.  If we change the name, it's not clear
  that newcomers will know what a `market' newsgroup is for, and we
  might break something which works well.  On the other hand, there
  is a precedent for the `market' name.  That's what they use in the
  Bay Area.  Further, I hope that a regular Welcome/FAQ posting might
  educate people as to its purpose.  I'm in favor of this change.

* Create austin.driving.  This is a recurring topic, and tends to
  overwhelm austin.general whenever the discussion starts up.  I would
  prefer not to create this group.  I think austin.talk should house
  these discussions, and I'd hope that a regular Welcome/FAQ message
  might direct more people to use it.  If it doesn't then we can always
  create it at a later time.  On the other hand, nearly 20% of the
  recent austin.general traffic has to do with driving, and maybe the
  group is justified.

* Create austin.eats.  I think the same arguments for and against
  austin.driving apply here, although this topic generates less
  discussion - about 12% of the recent austin.general traffic.  Again,
  I'd prefer to try directing this stuff towards austin.talk, and
  create the group only if time proves that won't work.

Thanks to Fletcher for providing comments and austin.general traffic
statistics.  The above comments, however, are solely mine, and I'm
not trying to imply his agreement or disagreement with them.

Comments?  Complaints?  Suggestions?
-- 
Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260 | Let the wayward children play.  Let the wicked
Unicom Systems Development   | have their day.  Let the chips fall where they
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>   | may.  I'm going to Disneyland.  -Timbuk 3