From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: 2nd (last)  RFD sci.space.planets
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:25:48 GMT

Another poke in the side to stimulate discussion of the formation of a
.planets group.  The following has been discussed so far:

roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov 

Mentioned that people subscribing to SPACE Digest may be left in the dust
since they may want to read a .planets group, but couldn't access it. Seemed
optimistic that we could arrange to have them included somehow.

ctuel@zeus.calpoly.edu, ctuel@nike.calpoly.edu and *many others* 

Suggested naming the group sci.space.planets or sci.astro.planets. I 
considered sci.space.planetology to ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu but was
told planets is better than planetology.

ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu

Expressed concern that a .planets group might become a group full of religious
discussions and that 

"there are
several existing groups which adequately cover all of your proposed
discussion areas.  Creating a new group to bring all of these fairly
diverse areas (vulcanism [sci.geo.geology?], magnetospheres [sci.physics?],
pollution [sci.environment]) under one umbrella is confusing, will
dilute the discussions of those subjects in those groups, and is unnecessary,
IMHO."

and would also

">I would like very much for you to restate the charter such that the
>meteorological subjects (at least for terrestrial meteorology) are not
>included.  We like them right here in sci.geo.meteorology, and would
>prefer to keep them in one place.  I would imagine that planetary
>atmospheres might be an appropriate topic for sci.planets, but probably
>would be cross-posted to sci.geo.meteorology."

and reminds me that some of the topics in my original post are already
discussed in more terrestrially focussed groups. Topics like Ozone loss
global warming, and pollution might be good to keep out of a .planets
group.

adds that

"...I agreed to withdraw my objection
if (1) an effort be made to allow access by non-Usenet people (comparable to
SPACE Digest), and (2) Earth be excluded from discussions involving politically
hot topics like ozone depletion and global warming, not because these topics
are unworthy, but so this won't become yet another fiery political group."

(which makes good sense and which we can certainly accomodate)


miller@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu

agrees with  ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu ,

"I agree completely with Ilana. In addition, if I am not mistaken, the
charters of both sci.geo.meteorology and sci.geo.fluids specifically
include discussion of atmospheres on other planets. In fact. s.g.f includes
discussion of all geophysical fluids which despite the "geo" includes
other planets in practice."


 slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil

was understandably shaken by my misconduct in netsemantics

"I am confused.  The "formal" vote was negated for some reason, but this
got posted a second time.  Will someone please clarify this situation."

(but we are all hip now, right?)

 roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV says that

"I am interested in it, too, but planetary science is also a major component
of sci.astro, which has an even larger bandwidth than sci.space.  It would
help tremendously, I beleive, to have a .planets group, which would reduce
traffic on both groups, and also tend to make the subject matter on all
three (sci.astro, sci.space, and the new .planets group) more specific."

In response to  slb@slced1.nswses.navy.mil's saying that

">Planetary science is a major component of sci.space, and I'm very interested
>in it. If you create sci.planets, then the people who have only limited
>Usenet access (me, for instance, at the moment, plus all the people on SPACE
>Digest once that's working again) won't be able to read it or post to it,
>thus limiting the participation in sci.planets and reducing the value of
>sci.space."


 msb@sq.sq.com points out that

"If people can't keep their newsgroups straight with two closely related
groups, I think that having three will just make it worse.  We will have
to read all three groups instead of two to get all the relevant articles,
and even more articles will be cross-posted inappropriately." and that 
" I would also like to see terrestrial environmental
topics, which tend to get political even in sci.environment (or did before
I unsubscribed), kept separate from, uh, astronomical planetary science."

(something we probably would all like.)


roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov reminds us that:

"There are at least two situations in which posting planetary material to
sci.space is entirely appropriate:
  - In the context of a discovery by a space-related device (i.e. "Magellan
    discovers active volcano on Venus").
  - In the context of space exploration (i.e. "Mars is very cold and has a thin
    unbreathable atmosphere, so environmental management will be a very
    important for any visits by humans")."

 otto@vaxb.acs.unt.edu

liked my idea about .planetology!  and points out that having this name
will help because

"That way, we'll keep the postings of "Where
in the sky is Jupiter tonight?" and "Searching for planets around other stars"
in sci.astro where they belong."



These are just a few of the posted responses which went along with many 
personal mail messages which may have contained less detail.

With all this, and other input, I conlcude that:

1) It would be important to make clear
that subjects in the .planets group *not* include fiery, politcally 
charged terrestrial subjects like ozone loss and global warming unless
it was discussed strictly in a scientific conext as part of the larger
subject of planetary atmospheres.

2) The group should be called sci.astro.planets or sci.space.planets.

3) The group is perceived to be a potenetial threat to sci.space as
it might funnel away some subject matter but that it also might help
ease the traffic in the high volume .space and .astro groups.

4) Many feel that planetology can be covered in the currently existing
groups although some feel  that much can be gained from having one group
with a focus on the subject.


One thing that almost all posters ignored was that one of my main
reasons for suggesting a new group would be to *stimulate* planetological
discussion, not solely to move traffic around.  Cross posting is always
(unfortuntely) an option.  Right now, wading through a bunch of 
vague subject lines in sci.astro that may or may not have interesting
planetary contexts is time consuming and unenlightening.  With a group
devoted just to planetary issues, we could all just read that group!

If there is specific input as to the charter of the group, please post
or mail it to me.

There will be a *real* CFV soon. Stay tuned.

Perhaps we should just try alt.sci.planetology and see how it goes?



-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Elderly and                      knapp@spot.colorad.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.