From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.arts.startrek.reviews moderated
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:06:10 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1jvvosINNeq3@rodan.UU.NET> koreth@hyperion.com (Steven Grimm) writes:
>This is the second REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION for rec.arts.startrek.reviews.


>What r.a.s.r. isn't
>-------------------
>The primary purpose of rec.arts.startrek.reviews is not to reduce the traffic
>in rec.arts.startrek.current.  In fact, some argue that it might increase
>such traffic (see the Problems section).  The idea is to provide people who
>want to read episode reviews, but don't want to wade through all of r.a.s.c.'s
>discussions to do it, an easy way to get to the articles they want.
>
>Reducing or segmenting r.a.s.c.'s traffic is still a desirable goal, and a
>goal that's not incompatible with this proposal.

Please take note of these two statements, as I will refer to them below.


>6. What about rec.arts.startrek.info?
>
>R.a.s.info's moderator has stated that he believes it is counter to that
>group's charter to post reviews there.  Since there is currently no procedure
>for changing the charter of a newsgroup, a .reviews group is the way to go
>if segregating reviews is desired.

Just one suggestion: if there is currently no procedure for changing
a group's charter, why not make one up?  If there's nothing in the
rules expressely forbidding it, then why couldn't we just have a cfv
on changing info's charter?  It might be a lot simpler than formally
creating a new newsgroup, plus people might just find it simpler to have
one moderated startrek newsgroup?


>Crossposting
>------------

I would be in favor of crossposting, since it would provide a base
reference for followup discussions in .current or wherever.  Some people
say that we ought not to create newsgroup that is duplicated in its
entirety on another newsgroup, but I say, why not create a precedent
here if it is in out interest to do so?


>Now, the concerns.  It's true that r.a.s.r. might have the effect of
>increasing r.a.s.c's traffic.  The question is, will it add "junk" traffic
>to r.a.s.c.?  The added traffic will generally be the reviews themselves
>(which one might reasonably expect to increase in number after r.a.s.r.'s
>creation) and the discussions stemming from those reviews.  Both of these
>seem completely within the bounds of r.a.s.c.'s charter, and indeed might
>be positive contributions to the group from the points of view of people
>who _do_ have the time and inclination to read all the reviews and
>followups there.

Yes.  Encouraging more people to write reviews is a good thing.

>Another point is that attempting to slow down r.a.s.c.'s growth by blocking
>crossposting on r.a.s.r. is likely to provide short-term relief only, and
>minimal relief at that.  Historically, Usenet's traffic has roughly doubled
>each year, a trend that shows no signs of slowing.  The traffic problem in
>r.a.s.c. is not going to be solved by eliminating r.a.s.r.'s crossposting.
>Other solutions will be necessary to lessen the flow of articles in r.a.s.c.

Yes, I agree.  I think that while r.a.s.reviews is a worthwhile proposal,
the biggest problem with the r.a.s. groups is that .current is just too
big.  We will have to find a way of reducing traffic there, probably
by splitting it.  I have been in favor or a ds9/tng style split, and
there have been other proposals as well.

Now, here's the point: I will vote for the creation of .reviews *if*
people generally agree to get serious about splitting .current in some
way after the .reviews group is created.  Above it was noted that .reviews
does not attempt to address the problem of .current, and this is fine by
me --  BUT, I can easily envision an rfd for splitting .current in a few
weeks time in which the main objection is, "Hey!  We just created a new
startrek newsgroup, .reviews.  Just how many newsgroups do we need?"

Indeed, when someone first pointed out that proposals to create .reviews
and to split .current into ds9 and tng branches were *not* mutually
exclusive, and I posted in support of this idea, the reaction of 
many people was just that -- "How many groups does Trek need?"

I say it needs however many as it needs.  As the .reviews proposal
stands, I like it, but only if people really adhere to the bit
about it *not* being a substitute for splitting .reviews.  I will
look at the reaction to this 2nd rfd and this post, and if people
seem to realize that the two proposals are *not* mutually exclusive
and seem to indicate that they are serious about discussing ways to
split .current, then I'll vote for it.  If I get reactions like the
ones discussed above, then I won't, since I believe the most urgent
problem we must deal with is the volume of traffic in .current.

Chris
Xref: sparky news.groups:26325 alt.flame:19402