From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SURVEY on REC.AVIATION RE-ORGANIZATION
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:41:44 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)

This may be of interest to your readers.  In particular, the proposal to
create a rec.aviation.military.  If you would carry this and the
accompanying RFD from Geoff Peck, I'd appreciate it.




------------------------

	
	Survey on the possible restructuring of rec.aviation.
	


Various information about the survey and the RFD follows the survey-form.
Please read it before replying.
	
*  Please edit the following, and mail to av-survey@rascal.ics.utexas.edu or
*  to rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (who will just remail it to av-survey).
*  Do NOT post a vote on the net (opinion, yes, vote, no).

--------------------------------  Cut here ----------------------------------

Re-organization questions
	
	Please answer "YES" or "NO" to EACH of the first three questions, 
	regardless of your answer to question #1:
	
	1. Should we re-organize the group at all?
					
	2. If we re-organize, should we move rec.aviation to the sci.* 
	   hierarchy?
	
	3. Should rec.aviation be renamed to rec.aviation.misc?  See Notes, below.
	
	4. Should we rename the rec.aviation stem to rec.av or rec.ga?  If
	   so, which one?
	
		
Which groups?

	REGARDLESS of whether you voted for the re-organization, from the 
	following list, please pick the groups you would like to see created, 
	should a re-organization-proposal go through.

	We are interested in the following information:
	
	1.  Pick the top TEN groups you like.  
	2.  Enter a number from 1 to 10, indicating your "strength" of 
	    support for that group. 

*		We're NOT after a neat "top ten" ranking (1,2,3,4, etc).

	3.  For the 10 groups selected, enter an "M" if you think the group should
	    be moderated.  If you would like to *volunteer* to moderate the 
	    group, enter a short note to that effect.
        
	Don't worry about formatting, and feel free to delete any groups you
	don't want to vote for.  As long as it's possible to pick out a clear
	opinion, we'll be happy. :-)
			
	IF YOU OPPOSE A GROUP, ENTER NOTHING.  This is a "positive" referendum.
	See the "Important notes," following the survey.
	

"Environmental" groups:

	rec.aviation.atc
		The worldwide Air Traffic Control environment, pilot/controller
		communications issues.  Compare with rec.aviation.regulatory.

	rec.aviation.ifr
		Topics of interest to instrument pilots.  Compare with 
		rec.aviation.regulatory, rec.aviation.powered, and rec.aviation.atc.
		
	rec.aviation.legal
		Legal matters: liability, enforcement actions, insurance, etc.  Compare 
		with rec.aviation.regulatory.

	rec.aviation.ownership
		Ownership-issues: costs, partnerships, bang for the buck, etc.
			
	rec.aviation.regulatory
		Regulatory issues.  See rec.aviation.atc, rec.aviation.ifr,
		rec.aviation.atc.  Lots of overlap.  In general, viewing
		the environment from the regulatory, rather airmanship, 
		perspective.  The existence of this group would mean that 
		ifr/vfr/flying/soaring groups would be more "piloting" than reg-
		interpretation.  Compare with rec.aviation.{atc,ifr,legal}.
		
"Flying" groups:

	rec.aviation.hang-gliding
		Hang-gliding.  Compare with rec.aviation.soaring.

	rec.aviation.helo
		Helicopters, autogyros, etc.

	rec.aviation.lta
		Lighter-than-air flight: balloons, dirigibles, blimps.  Compare with
		rec.aviation.soaring.

	rec.aviation.piloting
		Encompassing ifr, vfr, and powered flight.  Possibly soaring, but
		probably not.
		
	rec.aviation.powered
		Topics of interest to pilots of powered aircraft.

	rec.aviation.soaring
		Topics of interest to non-powered aircraft (gliders, but also 
		possibly hang gliders and balloons, if independent groups for those
		interests are not created).

	rec.aviation.vfr
		Topics of exclusive interest to VFR pilots.  This would logically
		accompany rec.aviation.ifr.

"Miscellaneous" groups:

	rec.aviation.digest      
		A low-volume group containing an edited digest
		of important posts to the various rec.av groups; the digest
		would probably be issued once or twice per week.  Of necessity,
		this group must be moderated, and is proposed as such, with Geoff 
		Peck as initial moderator.

	rec.aviation.answers
        There is a great deal of repetitive traffic on rec.aviation.  Geoff
        Peck has been maintaining a posting of frequently asked questions
        and their answers (the FAQ) for quite some time.  This newsgroup
        would allow an expansion of the material in the FAQ by allowing
        multiple, more specific postings, with contributions from netters
        with expertise in various areas.  Geoff has volunteered to moderate
        this group, which would serve as an anchor for these postings.  As 
        with the digest group, this is proposed solely as a moderated group.
		
	rec.aviation.products
		Products and reviews.

	rec.aviation.simulators
		There are more PC-simulator pilots than real pilots: 
		this could be their home.  See rec.aviation.software.

	rec.aviation.software
		Discussions/reviews of software, data products, etc.  See also
		rec.aviation.simulators

"Social" groups:

	rec.aviation.events
		Used to announce fly-ins, airshows, safety seminars, etc.  Contrast
		with rec.aviation.misc and rec.aviation.social.

	rec.aviation.flyins
		Low-volume group used only to announce fly-ins.

	rec.aviation.history
		History of aviation.  

	rec.aviation.humor
		"Heard on the air" and funny stories.
	
	rec.aviation.social
		Social stuff: fly-ins, chit-chat, patch-requests, one-liners,
		etc.  Stuff that is less about aviation than "socializing" among
		net.aviators.  Cf. rec.aviation.misc.

	rec.aviation.warbirds
		Discussion of pre-Vietnam aircraft.  See rec.aviation.military.

"Technical" groups:

	rec.aviation.airline
		Airline operations, design, human factors, construction,
		airline histories, etc.  If created as a moderated group,
		Karl Swartz has volunteered to moderate it.

	sci.aeronautics.{airliners,transport}
		Airliner and transport-category aircraft-discussions, more 
		technical/abstract, less noise.  More concerned with airplanes
		than airlines.  If created as a moderated  group, Karl Swartz 
		has volunteered to moderate it.
											
	rec.aviation.airplanes
		General discussions of airplanes as "hardware."

	rec.aviation.binary
		Non-ascii files of interest to aviation users: software, GIF
		images, etc.

	rec.aviation.homebuilt
		Experimental/home-built aircraft.

	rec.aviation.maintenance
		Maintenance of general aviation aircraft, from all perspectives,
		owner or otherwise.

	rec.aviation.medical
		Medical issues: vision, heart, physiological effects of 
		aviation, etc.

	rec.aviation.military
		Military aviation, to move traffic (?) from sci.military.
		
	rec.aviation.safety
		Safety records, attainment of good ones, etc, crash-analysis,
		etc.

  	rec.aviation.theory       
  		aerodynamic theory, modelling, powerplant theory and operation, 
  		formulas and equations, from a practitioner's viewpoint (i.e., 
  		pilots, not aero engineers)
		
"Training" groups:

	rec.aviation.careers
		Discussions on aviation careers, by those moving up the ladder
		as well as those on the top.  How to bridge the awful gulf between
		a commercial rating and the ATP.  How to get hired.  Airline
		careers.

	rec.aviation.cfi
		Training from the instructor's viewpoint.  See rec.aviation.training.

	rec.aviation.student
		Moving up the ladder, from the student pilot's perspective.  
		Oriented toward student pilots.  
			
	rec.aviation.training
		Moving up the ladder, in general, from all perspectives.


"Something else?"
		
	rec.aviation.___________
	
		Pick a topic not mentioned above!
		
		
		
--------------------------------  Cut here ----------------------------------
	
Purpose
	
	There have been a number of re-organization proposals in the last few 
	months.  In replying, a lot of people have resorted to arbitrary 
	approaches to oppose or support groups.  Even the people proposing new 
	groups have tended to rely too much on *posted* opinions, which aren't 
	necessarily indicative of how people will vote in an actual CFV. In
	many cases, such people have grossly underestimated the breadth of 
	support for the groups they support.
	
	This is intended to provide harder data.  In recent years, group-votes 
	have tended to insist on consensus *before* the actual voting period.  
	Rather than rely on the most *vocal* users' opinions, this survey 
	attempts to give users the option to register their "raw" support or 
	opposition to the proposal.  It will, thus, hopefully help keep the
	flames or arguments over "arbitrariness" to a minimum.

	We ask two basic questions: WHETHER to re-organize rec.aviation, and,
	if so, HOW to re-organize it.  Your collective answers will be 
	considered in an impending call-for-votes on the subject.
	
	Please take time to answer this survey.  It will be used, along with
	the RFD posted by Geoff Peck, to hammer out a final call-for-votes. 
	It's VERY important that we get a good idea of user preferences.  If
	you  do not reply, a CFV could be issued which may not be entirely 
	representative  of user preferences, and *still* pass a final vote.

*	The survey is NOT binding.  As an individual, you're free to issue a 
*   completely different vote when the actual voting process occurs.  View 
*   this as a "primary": you're helping decide which groups get on the final 
*   CFV "ballot."  Respond, or suffer the consequences. :-)  
	
	In the survey, whenever the word "vote" is used, it's in respect
	to this survey, not the final call-for-votes.
	
	Please keep two questions in mind: (a) if a group or reorganization is 
	created, would it significantly change the traffic on rec.aviation, 
	and (b) do you think you would USE the group?  Try to ask yourself  
	"how would it affect the net?" rather than simply "would it help ME?"
	If you do like the group *idea*, envision whether having a real, live
	newsgroup with the given *name* might actually be workable.  Note also
	that *not* caring for traffic is as valid a reason for voting FOR a group
	as DESIRING a group dedicated to the traffic.

Survey period

	The survey will be held from 1600 CST on July 14 through 1600 CST on 
	July 28.  All replies will be publicly accessible via anonymous ftp in 
	misc/av/re-organization/votes on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, when the voting
	process is over.
	
	Summaries of current voting will be posted to rec.aviation, 
	sci.aeronautics, news.groups, and rec.travel.air on July 29. 


Important notes:

	This version of the survey is based on the first one, with most of the
	verbiage pushed to the end.  We hope it is more intuitive than the first
	one; the fine print's down here, for those who want more guidance.
	
	On the creation of *.misc:
	
       Net.convention has been to automatically create a "misc" newsgroup
       once a group re-organizess at all; this is were all "non-specialized"
       traffic goes.  This vote would make it an option: failure
       to create such a newsgroup can have dire consequences on the
       usefulness of a re-organization (for instance, fly-ins and chit-chat 
       being discussed in an ifr group).

	Why ten groups?
		
		To get users to think about it.  Both fewer than ten and more than 
		ten votes will be considered.
		
	Group-rating
		
		We're trying to figure out what the rec.aviation usership as a whole
		wants.  So, if you feel REALLY strongly about a group, give it a 
		10.  If you're less sure, pick a lower number.  For example, if you 
		feel that rec.aviation.ifr should ABSOLUTELY be created, enter a 10, 
		but if you feel that rec.av.students would be okay, but you don't 
		feel strongly about it, enter a 1.  If you enter all 1's to your 
		ten groups, that's okay, just as all 10's would be.  
		
	Positive referendum?
	
		The survey is intended to measure strength, not weakness.  There is 
		no provision to criticize a possible group.  Please answer the group-
		questions, even if you're opposed to the re-organization: it will
		help "cover yourself," should this go to a real vote, and the groups
		be created.  
		
	Themes
	
		The various groups have been sorted by general "themes."  In many
		cases, there is overlap (for instance, av.ifr would be both a heavy
		"regulatory" style group, and a "flying" group); the author of the 
		survey only offers the groupings to make the "sorting" process easier.
	
		An error was made in the original survey, placing both the history
		and warbirds groups under the "social" classification.  They should
		be regarded as technical/miscellaneous groups; I am keeping them
		in "Social" area solely to make it a bit easier to tabulate the votes.
		
		*	The groupings should NOT be construed as official parts of the 
		charters.


Less important notes:

	The supplied pseudo-charters are intended to give the "gist" of
	possible content, as well as to suggest possible conflicts.  For 
	instance, "rec.aviation.legal" is very similar to rec.aviation.regulatory, 
	but only rec.aviation.regulatory could be construed as supporting IFR or
	ATC discussions.  Similarly, a rec.aviation.hang-gliding could easily 
	be argued to be a subset of a "soaring" newsgroup's charter. 
	
*	Note that the *name* of a non-moderated group is often much more 
*	important than any charter developed for it.
	
	In the final CFV, the charters may be revised in small ways, in order
	to  achieve a final "fine-tuning" of the top newsgroups, without a
	second survey.   In groups with clear similarities, the CFV author may
	choose one group over the other--for instance, we wouldn't really want
	rec.aviation.student  *and* rec.aviation.training, at least at this
	stage.

	All traffic will be archived on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, in
	public-readable files in the ftp area (misc/av/votes).  

	

Caveat

	This is *not* the RFD.  Please do not discuss it; by itself, it's a 
	"non-event."  It's just a poll on how people feel about a re-
	organization.  Save the flames for the RFD. :-)
	


Glossary:

	RFD: Request for Discussion--30-day discussion period prior to
    newsgroup vote.
    
    CFV: Call for Votes: 21-31-day voting period, the results of which
    determine whether the group should be created.
    
    
Newsgroups: sci.military