From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.culture.native.american
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:17:21 GMT

In <1992Dec19.195731.11630@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> hades@coos.dartmouth.edu
	(Hades) writes:

> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

> >...what we want to give some thought to at this point is what
> >sort of base we are building for later development.

>     But you can plan too far in advance. Many groups have failed becuase
> the people involved were too concerned with adding more groups, and make
> a hierarchy.

My basic proposal at this point is only that we create two new newsgroups,
one to be called "soc.culture.<something>.info" and the other "soc.culture.
<something>.d" (where "<something>" is one of "native," "indigenous," or
"aboriginal").  I can also accept using "soc.culture.<something>" in place
of the ".info" newsgroup for that same purpose.  I don't feel that this
idea is going too far out on an electronic limb or being overly concerned
with adding more groups later.  It does provide a solid foundation for
doing so, however.

>     Is it too much to ask that we worry about the newsgroup first,
> instead of some possible future impact of a mailing list? Usenet does
> not exist for you to gateway your mailing lists.

I have heard no objections about the mailing list gateway except from Brian.
As I have written in recent postings, the distinction between Usenet and
non-Usenet is artificial.  The only difference between someone who is able
to read and respond to articles via Usenet and those who must rely on the
mailing lists is one of user interface.  It's not a matter of misusing this
thing called "Usenet" in my mind.  Rather the issue is whether there is a
good reason to insulate the people who are able to take advantage of the
user interface that Usenet newsreaders provide from those who do not.  I
have not yet heard a good argument to build walls between the two communi-
ties of people who are interested in the same subject matter.

> >Later, a "soc.culture.native.chat" newsgroup could be used to consider
> >whether it was time to talk about creating a
> >"soc.culture.native.info.america" or some such, if there was enough
> >traffic of a strictly (North/South) American nature, and if folks wanted
> >to consider that subject matter separately.

> >How does that idea sound?

>     Like way too much to be thinking about at this stage, we don't even
> have the first newsgroup, much less the fourth one that you mention
> above. Can we try to slow things down a bit? What we want here is
> soc.culture.native, first, and possibly other groups at some later date
> that we really can't talk about at this point, because we don't even
> have the first group.

It does not seem to be too ambitious to work for the creation of two initial
newsgroups, one for informational postings and one for discussion.  The only
reason I have mentioned additional newsgroups is to indicate possible evo-
lution from the basic newsgroups, so as to demonstrate that they do in fact
provide a good foundation for later elaboration.  They are not, however,
driven by that desire.

However, as I said in a recent article, if the idea of eventually having a
"soc.culture.native.info.america" sounds too complex, I would be willing to
drop the idea of having a "soc.culture.native.info" and use "soc.culture.
native" instead, which would then enable a "soc.culture.native.american,"
etc. to emerge later:

                    soc.culture.native
                    |                |
		american             d
		    |
		    d

Maybe this idea would be easier for people to accept.  What do others feel?

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst