From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: soc.culture.<whatever>.*
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:33:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: gnosys.1992Dec17.043327.12474

In <BzDJx9.B1r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
	(Karleen S. Davis) writes:

> I do agree that it might be a good thing to plan ahead as we create
> these new newsgroups for {native, indigenous, aboriginal} peoples so
> that we can accomodate some kind of link between the existing mailing
> lists on the topic.  I have been trying to think of a way to
> accomplish this link without necessitating the creation of two new
> newsgroups, but nothing has been readily apparent...

We need to think it through together, I feel, and whatever decisions we
come to should affect the naming issue, which is why I bring it up now.
I hope that anyone taking part in Mike's "straw poll" will consider this
subject in voting.  I still feel it's too early for a vote that means
much, since we still haven't had enough of a discussion to consider all
of the ramifications of what we're doing here, and some of our best minds
are probably already on vacation.  :-)

> I'm not sure how a thriving mailing list would react, in terms of
> volume, to being linked up with a full-blown Usenet newsgroup, with
> all of its requisite flamewars and junk postings.

Well, the mailing list is moderated, so the flamewars and junk postings
will get rejected by the moderator, who will be responsible for erecting
and maintaining a flame-resistant barrier :-) between the two entities.
Since the newsgroup(s) will be unmoderated, there's nothing to protect
Usenetters from one another, though.  The system acting as a gateway
will pick up all new articles from the newsgroup(s) and present them to
the moderator, who will pass them on to the appropriate list.  But (don't
even think of it!), the moderator cannot sort out discussion and non-
discussion articles from a single newsgroup and route them to one of the
two lists (NATIVE-L and NATCHAT) previously mentioned.  Just a reminder,
NATCHAT is presently linked with alt.native, and the scheme has been
working quite nicely for a number of months.  In fact, the moderators
for that group (a married couple in Seattle) are not even on the gateway
system; articles are mailed to them for approval, and they mail them back.
The gateway system also receives articles from mailing list subscribers,
either sent to an address on the gateway system, or via the LISTSERV host
at TAMVM1 (at Texas A & M University).

> One of my concerns with creating two groups is that one will pass and
> the other won't (admittedly likely), and I don't want to have
> restricted ourselves to an unpleasant situation in that event.

Neither do I, but I'm not sure why it is being deemed unlikely for both
newsgroups to pass.  If they're presented as a package, along with a
rationale that explains the need for them to people on both the Usenet
side and the mailing list side, I would think there would be as good a
chance of both newsgroups passing as just one.  Am I missing something?

> If we design the newsgroups' charters strictly around those of the
> mailing lists, I think we're risking failure of the groups.

Why is that?  Can you give a reason?  The mailing lists are primarily
for the purpose of exchanging information (NATIVE-L) and discussing
(NATCHAT) topics and issues pertaining to native/indigenous/aboriginal
people and peoples.  It seems to me that this is the same thing we've
been talking about in our news.groups/alt.native discussions so far.

> I think we should
> find a compromise between making Usenet homes for these mailing lists
> and making newsgroups that don't consider the mailing lists at all.

Well, the way I think about it, it's really not so much a matter of
"making homes" for existing mailing lists, but just establishing con-
nections among people from different network communities who share
interests, or just making certain electronic conferences available by
more convenient means for those who have access to systems supporting
Usenet news.  (As it is, anyone with access to Usenet can subscribe to
any of the NativeNet mailing lists, but many people who are used to the
Usenet way of doing things find mailing lists clumsy and inconvenient.)

I don't want to impose an agenda on people in Usenet-land, but I don't
really see the distinction between these two supposed "worlds" all that
real or fundamental.  We're all just people interested in certain sub-
jects, who happen to use various kinds of hardware and software which
require us to do slightly different things in order to take part in
the interchanges.  Why do we need to develop an "us/them" mentality
around the linkup?

> Another reason I am hesitating to support your suggestion is that the
> names of your proposed groups do not clearly indicate their content.

OK.  This is an area that I feel we need to think about and talk about
some more...

> To me, soc.culture.*.misc doesn't say "informational postings."

Right.  And that's the reason I had been suggesting using soc.culture.*
for the purpose.

> ...soc.culture.*.d, does indeed say "discussion," but it's the
> type of discussion I was EXPECTING to find in the "misc" group.

Hmmm.

> Correct me if I missed one, but it's not common to see a *.misc AND a
> *.d at the same level in a hierarchy.  They seem to mean the same
> thing.

You're probably right.

> If we were to create two newsgroups (which, for reasons stated above,
> I don't prefer), I would rather see the discussion newsgroup linked
> with NATCHAT be named either soc.culture.*.misc or simply be the
> parent group soc.culture.*, and the informational group be named
> something else, like soc.culture.*.info or something.  At the very
> least, it should be a name that clearly indicates its contents.

I could live with this arrangement, I think, but what do people feel
about something like "soc.culture.*.info" and "soc.culture.*.chat?"
That way, "soc.culture.*" would just be a parent-node for the two,
so we could avoid the situation that the posting of bogus newsgroups
I cited recently seems to indicate the net is trying to get away from,
where you have "x.y" being used for informational postings and "x.y.d"
being used for discussion.  BTW, I could also accept "soc.culture.*.d"
in place of "soc.culture.*.chat," if it's more of a standard.

> I think, however, that we should consider alternatives that involve
> the creation of only one group.  Perhaps we can only gate the mailing
> lists into the group, with nothing gated out,

I don't like that idea.  I feel the Usenet community should have an
easy mechanism for broadcasting an article to the entire group of folks
taking part in a discussion or exchange of information.  The most natural
mechanism, of course, is just posting an article.  The gateway would take
care of the rest.

> or set up a two-way exchange with only one of the lists.

Well, there is already the NATCHAT/alt.native link.  If it is absolutely
clear that only one newsgroup has hope of passing (I still don't see why
such would be true, though), that link could be left in place, and the
NATIVE-L moderator would just not pass through any discussion-oriented
articles from Usenet to the lists, and people who get alt.native would
be encouraged to use it instead, and Usenetters would be encouraged to
subscribe to NATCHAT - but I don't think this whole scheme would work
very well, and I don't like it all, for a number of reasons, and I hope
we can save it as a last resort.

> Later, if it becomes clear that a more filtered, informational newsgroup
> like the NATIVE-L mailing list is needed, one can always be added.

There are a number of problems with this suggestion.  The one that comes
to mind as being the most important is that the name of the general-purpose
newsgroup would be affected, if not determined, by its function.  I think
it would be just about necessary to call the thing "soc.culture.*," rather
than "soc.culture.*.d," for example, if it were the only newsgroup to be
created.  And we all know it's much harder to change something than to set
it up in the first place, since dregs of the old arrangement tend to stay
around in various places to confuse people.  I'd much prefer to make every
attempt to create both newsgroups at once, unless a very convincing reason
can be advanced as to why they would have less of a chance of passing than
a single one.

> Let's reach a compromise that does not involve painting ourselves into a
> corner if only one of the proposed newsgroups passes.

I believe in compromise, but I'd like a better reason for thinking that it's
needed in this case.

What do others feel?

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