From: hch@oclc.org (Curtis Hunter)
Subject: Re: rec.arts.marching
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:15:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.101457.16087@husc3.harvard.edu> fath1@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Fath) writes:
>In article <69961@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1293c@prism.gatech.EDU (W. Scott Radeker, IV) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.173411.4449@desire.wright.edu> byork@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I agree and prefer to see bands instead of misc.  I think misc was suggested
>to encourage colorguard discussion on the misc group.  But interestingly, I
>have not seen one post here discussing colorguards specifically.  Alt.colorguard
>does exist and its traffic is consistently very low.  Thus the question arises,

  Michael, I think one of the reasons the traffic is low on alt.colorguard is
because when it was created (by me) last winter there were quit a few news
admins that emailed me and said they would not carry the group.  Their main
reason was that the control message did not come from me.  I do not have admin
access, and at the time the machine I was getting news on had a UUCP address,
so it was suggested that I have someone else issue the newgroup.  I did, and 
because the newgroup didn't come specifically from me, some news admins opted
not to carry it.  Some also had a problem with it because the newgroup was
issued 1 week after my inital posting in alt.config.  I talked to a few admins
and waited the period of time they suggested and then had the newgroup 
reissued.  

  The traffic increased towards the end of the WGI (Winter Guard Int'l) season,
and then dropped off around the end of April.  I believe there will be more
traffic this year because some people were just finding the group at the end of
the season.

>how important is it to people to name the second group rec.arts.marching.misc
>as opposed to rec.arts.marching.bands?  Do people think that there is enough
>traffic for non-marching-band related items to warrent a misc instead of a
>bands?  I for one do not think there is.
>

    I do not either at this time.  But I do think that a general description
should be included for both groups in the list of newsgroups.  It there is
alot of traffic dealing with one specific aspect, then we can see about RFDing
a newgroup for that aspect.

>Lastly, I'm perfectly comfortable welcomining any colorguard discussion on
>rec.arts.marching.drumcorps.  They are after-all sister activities.  If not,
>then they do still have alt.colorguard.
>
  As I stated above, if there is a large amount of traffic we can always
RFD a new group.

  Overall, I agree with Michael.  The objection I've had to having the arts
included in the name was because I see it as a double standard.  Some groups
are required to fall under a sub-group of rec, while others are not.  I can 
also see some peoples view about trying to get the news organized by setting
an example.  I will vote for the groups whatever the names trun out to be
because I think there is a need for them.  (Plus I enjoy reading them ;-) )


_______________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
|  Curtis Hunter                      curtis@sporty.col.oh.us                 |
|  Online Computer Library Center     hch@oclc.org                            |
|  Dublin, OH                         CIS  76040,2605                         |
|  (614) 764-6325                                                             |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|