From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: reorganization of misc.jobs and similar groups
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:09:20 GMT
Organization: Ditka Policy Institute

In article <1isp5dINNpc4@rodan.UU.NET> weinss@rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
>These proposals are independent.  Some can be approved without the others:
>1. Rename misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.discussion to cut down on postings there
>	that belong in misc.jobs.wanted or misc.jobs.offered.

Although I'm not a fan of gratuitous abbreviations, the ".d" suffix,
as in "misc.jobs.d", seems to be the prevalent Usenet standard practice
for discussion subgroups.  Maybe we would do it some other way if we
are starting over, but it's probably worth sticking with this convention
for the sake of consistency.

>2. Create new group misc.jobs.nonpermanent or misc.jobs.shortterm for 
>	temporary, co-op, summer, internship, etc., positions.  (Requests,
>	offerings, and discussion)  (I'm still unsure of the exact 
>	name.  "Temporary" has the wrong connotation.)

Hmmm, I see the need to group these items together but like you
I'm unsure of the name; maybe we should consider misc.jobs.temp
as one of the possibilities.

>3. Split misc.jobs.offered.entry into misc.jobs.offered.entry.almost and
>	misc.jobs.offered.entry.newgrads to because of complaints by people
>	who felt that jobs requiring experience were de facto not entry level.

Nope, don't buy this one.  It's just too nit-picky, and I don't think it'll
make those particular complaints go away.  I'm still not convinced that	
misc.jobs.offered.entry is meeting its goals as it stands, let alone
subdividing it.

>4. Create new hierarchy misc.jobs.local.* and move all regional job groups
>	(aus.jobs, ne.jobs, ba.jobs, ca.jobs, can.jobs, ont.jobs, etc., etc.)
>	under it (e.g. make ne.jobs into misc.jobs.ne).  This may make it 
>	easier for people planning to move to find jobs in their 
>	destination area.

Nice idea, although I think you meant ne.jobs -> misc.jobs.local.ne if I
understand your intentions.  Should the hierarchy should reflect the same
domain hierarchy as the geography; in other words, should there
be a misc.jobs.local.na.usa.pa for jobs in Pennsylvania, USA?  Or is
that simply going to make the group names too unwieldy?

>5. Replace misc.jobs.offered and comp.jobs.offered, with
>	misc.jobs.offered.computer and misc.jobs.offered.noncomputer.
>	This should help with the current problems of computer jobs
>	constituting most (but not all) postings to misc.jobs.offered
>	and computer offerings being located in two separate groups.

I think splitting out the noncomputer jobs might be premature, but
I have no big problem with it.  Instead of "noncomputer", perhaps
classifications like "medical", "legal", "office", "retail" and so on
should be created, even though such newsgroups are likely to be
underutilized for the short-term future.

>6. Replace bionet.jobs, comp.jobs, vmsnet.employment, biz.jobs.*, and 
>	similar groups, with misc.jobs.biology, misc.jobs.computer, 
>	misc.jobs.computer.VMS, misc.jobs.business.*, etc.

I think parts 5 and 6 should be tied together into one unified
proposal, but I do think we should be careful about excessive
creation of subgroups at this point: perhaps we'd be better served
by setting up an extensible top-level which can be expanded as needs
arise, but not trying to extend it too much -- just now.

All in all, I think you've raised some fine ideas which form an
excellent starting point for discussion.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: news.groups