From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:44:14 GMT

In article <96568@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
Kulawiec) writes:
> The chronology below is the same one that I posted a couple of days
> ago, but now includes the headers from the CFD's and CFV's.
> My comments, which are lengthy (sorry), are mostly at the end.
> Followups have been redirected to news.groups.
> 
> 8/19	First call for discussion; proposed groups are:
> 	rec.music.guitar, rec.music.bass, rec.music.drums,
> 	rec.music.tablature, and rec.music.tablature.d.
> 
> 	Headers:
> 
> 	From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
> 	Newsgroups:  
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.misc,rec.music.makers,alt.gu 
itar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
> 	Subject: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
> 	Message-ID: <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net>
> 	Date: 19 Aug 92 03:59:17 GMT
> 	Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
> 	Followup-To: news.groups
> 	Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
>

Please note that this article is the only one that directly states in its  
its subject line that it affects rec.music.*. It wasn't posted to  
rec.music.synth because it didn't affect it at that point.

> 
> 8/28	Second call for discussion; proposed groups are:
> 	rec.music.makers.guitar, rec.music.makers.bass,
> 	rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, rec.music.makers.percussion;
> 	proposed renaming is rec.music.synth->rec.music.makers.keyboards.
> 
> 	Headers:
> 
> 	From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
> 	Newsgroups:  
news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,alt.g 
uitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
> 	Subject: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
> 	Message-ID: <BtpH40.2Mx@uunet.uu.net>
> 	Date: 28 Aug 92 18:09:29 GMT
> 	Sender: tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence)
> 	Followup-To: news.groups
> 	Approved: tale@uunet.uu.net
> 

The subject line has been changed. It doesn't any longer contain  
rec.music.*. This was the first article sent to rec.music.synth. All  
subsequent articles are presented in this fashion.

QUESTION:

Without saying it's grounds for a re-vote, without saying that readers  
should have known that r.m.s was affected because of the presense of the  
article in r.m.s, my question is:

Should the subject line of articles posted to r.m.s. been more clear about  
what groups were affected?

Possibly "rec.music.* renamed to rec.music.makers.*" or even so bold as  
"rec.music.synth renamed to rec.music.makers.synth"?

It doesn't seem like that would have been too difficult (10 seconds of  
typing?) and would have avoided this whole mess.

I don't want an answer avoiding this issue by telling me it's moot or that  
I'm lazy/ignorant and have no respect for Usenet guidelines. Just answer  
the question.

This is an open question to anyone, not just Rich.

If we as news group participants have to take the time to read each and  
every policy related article we run across (of which there are hundreds),  
perhaps the people creating the reorganizations should have an obligation  
to take the time and create meaningful subject lines.

Gordon

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups