From: dww@bnr.co.uk (David Wright)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.crafts.metalworking
Organization: BNR Europe Limited, Harlow, UK
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.154041.262@news.uwyo.edu> jimkirk@news.uwyo.edu writes:
#I would like to propose a change of name for the proposed newsgroup
#rec.crafts.metalworking, to simply rec.metalworking.  Apparently,
#UseNet is attempting to place more structure on the hierarchy, so that
#instead of rec.*, you have rec.group.*.  ...
#
#1.  I note that, at least on our system, there are 3 "crafts" groups
#    and 306 non-crafts groups.  Not an overwhelming response to the
#    new rules.  On the other hand, the rules are relatively new.

I think you exagerate the case.  There are 253 rec. groups on our system,
and we are pretty up to date (I wonder if you grep'ed on rec instead of
\^rec and picked up some alt groups?).    Most of these rec groups are in
the rec.group.thing format, where group is arts, sport, aviation, etc.
Most (I'd say all, but this being Usenet there's sure to be an exception
I've forgotten :-) of the rec.thing groups date back from when only a few
rec. groups existed, and a further level in the naming scheme didn't seem
necessary.

The rec.crafts tree is indeed fairly recent; it came about because it was
decided that a new group didn't fit into any existing second-level
hierarchy, and that it would be better to have rec.crafts.textiles than yet
another 'top-level' group rec.textiles.   It was also felt that the
rec.crafts area would prove useful for future new group proposals.

Remember that there's a reason for this taxonomic approach - to make the
news name space as a whole easier to manage and use.  It is true that the
existing group name choice is not perfect.  But that's no reason not to try
to improve it every time we slot a new group in.

So personally I think the group's name should be rec.crafts.metalworking,
as is says up there in the Subject.  I feel strongly enough about this that
I'd vote against rec.metalworking, but for rec.crafts.metalworking.

#2.  Symmetry with the strongly-related group rec.woodworking.  Unless of
#    course they decide to change to rec.crafts.woodworking.  Perhaps
#    they get to be grandfathered, being an old group?
True.  (Unless someone wants to propose renaming that group. Not today!)

#3.  The existing group is trial.rec.metalworking, not
#    trial.rec.crafts.metalworking.

The 'trial' scheme is dead, but if it were still going "a small group of
experienced Usenet admins" would propose the name for the new group.
As the naming convention has developed since 'trial.metalworking' was
created, they might well propose rec.crafts.metalworking.  The nearest
thing to such a group now is 'group-advice'.

#4.  In e-mail, some have complained to me that "crafts" is a demeaning
#    add-on, implying the group is for discussion of things like how to
#    weld five beer cans together into the shape of a schnauzer ...

No, that would be rec.arts.metalworking :-)

Regards,     David Wright BNR Europe, London Road, Harlow, Essex  CM17 9NA, UK
dww@bnr.co.uk <or>  ...uunet!mcsun!uknet!stl!dww <or>  PSI%234237100122::DWW
Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to
any question than one does.  Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.bluenote