From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: SECOND WEEK: SURVEY ON POSSIBLE REC.AVIATION RE-STRUCTURING
Date: 21 Jul 1992 18:09:50 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

[ Apologies for clumsy cross-posting: news problems. -- rdd ]

Name    
    
    Survey on the possible restructuring of rec.aviation.
    

Various information about the survey and the RFD follows the survey-form.
Please read it before replying.  
    
*  Please edit the following, and mail to av-survey@rascal.ics.utexas.edu or
*  to rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (who will just remail it to av-survey).
*  Do NOT post a vote on the net (opinion, yes, vote, no).

--------------------------------  Cut here ----------------------------------

Re-organization questions
    
    Please answer "YES" or "NO" to EACH of the first three questions, 
    regardless of your answer to question #1:
    
    1. Should we re-organize the group at all?
                    
    2. If we re-organize, should we move rec.aviation to the sci.* 
       hierarchy?
    
    3. Should rec.aviation be renamed to rec.aviation.misc?  See Notes, below.
    
    4. Should we rename the rec.aviation stem to rec.av or rec.ga?  If
       so, which one?
    
        
Which groups?

    REGARDLESS of whether you voted for the re-organization, from the 
    following list, please pick the groups you would like to see created, 
    should a re-organization-proposal go through.

    We are interested in the following information:
    
    1.  Pick the top TEN groups you like.  
    2.  Enter a number from 1 to 10, indicating your "strength" of 
        support for that group. 

*       We're NOT after a neat "top ten" ranking (1,2,3,4, etc).

    3.  For the 10 groups selected, enter an "M" if you think the group should
        be moderated.  If you would like to *volunteer* to moderate the 
        group, enter a short note to that effect.
        
    Don't worry about formatting, and feel free to delete any groups you
    don't want to vote for.  As long as it's possible to pick out a clear
    opinion, we'll be happy. :-)
            
    IF YOU OPPOSE A GROUP, ENTER NOTHING.  This is a "positive" referendum.
    See the "Important notes," following the survey.
    

"Environmental" groups:

    rec.aviation.atc
        The worldwide Air Traffic Control environment, pilot/controller
        communications issues.  Compare with rec.aviation.regulatory.

    rec.aviation.ifr
        Topics of interest to instrument pilots.  Compare with 
        rec.aviation.regulatory, rec.aviation.powered, and rec.aviation.atc.
        
    rec.aviation.legal
        Legal matters: liability, enforcement actions, insurance, etc.  Compare 
        with rec.aviation.regulatory.

    rec.aviation.ownership
        Ownership-issues: costs, partnerships, bang for the buck, etc.
            
    rec.aviation.regulatory
        Regulatory issues.  See rec.aviation.atc, rec.aviation.ifr,
        rec.aviation.atc.  Lots of overlap.  In general, viewing
        the environment from the regulatory, rather airmanship, 
        perspective.  The existence of this group would mean that 
        ifr/vfr/flying/soaring groups would be more "piloting" than reg-
        interpretation.  Compare with rec.aviation.{atc,ifr,legal}.
        
"Flying" groups:

    rec.aviation.hang-gliding
        Hang-gliding.  Compare with rec.aviation.soaring.

    rec.aviation.helo
        Helicopters, autogyros, etc.

    rec.aviation.lta
        Lighter-than-air flight: balloons, dirigibles, blimps.  Compare with
        rec.aviation.soaring.

    rec.aviation.piloting
        Encompassing ifr, vfr, and powered flight.  Possibly soaring, but
        probably not.
        
    rec.aviation.powered
        Topics of interest to pilots of powered aircraft.

    rec.aviation.soaring
        Topics of interest to non-powered aircraft (gliders, but also 
        possibly hang gliders and balloons, if independent groups for those
        interests are not created).

    rec.aviation.vfr
        Topics of exclusive interest to VFR pilots.  This would logically
        accompany rec.aviation.ifr.

"Miscellaneous" groups:

    rec.aviation.digest      
        A low-volume group containing an edited digest
        of important posts to the various rec.av groups; the digest
        would probably be issued once or twice per week.  Of necessity,
        this group must be moderated, and is proposed as such, with Geoff 
        Peck as initial moderator.

    rec.aviation.answers
        There is a great deal of repetitive traffic on rec.aviation.  Geoff
        Peck has been maintaining a posting of frequently asked questions
        and their answers (the FAQ) for quite some time.  This newsgroup
        would allow an expansion of the material in the FAQ by allowing
        multiple, more specific postings, with contributions from netters
        with expertise in various areas.  Geoff has volunteered to moderate
        this group, which would serve as an anchor for these postings.  As 
        with the digest group, this is proposed solely as a moderated group.
        
    rec.aviation.products
        Products and reviews.

    rec.aviation.simulators
        There are more PC-simulator pilots than real pilots: 
        this could be their home.  See rec.aviation.software.

    rec.aviation.software
        Discussions/reviews of software, data products, etc.  See also
        rec.aviation.simulators

"Social" groups:

    rec.aviation.events
        Used to announce fly-ins, airshows, safety seminars, etc.  Contrast
        with rec.aviation.misc and rec.aviation.social.

    rec.aviation.flyins
        Low-volume group used only to announce fly-ins.

    rec.aviation.history
        History of aviation.  

    rec.aviation.humor
        "Heard on the air" and funny stories.
    
    rec.aviation.social
        Social stuff: fly-ins, chit-chat, patch-requests, one-liners,
        etc.  Stuff that is less about aviation than "socializing" among
        net.aviators.  Cf. rec.aviation.misc.

    rec.aviation.warbirds
        Discussion of pre-Vietnam aircraft.  See rec.aviation.military.

"Technical" groups:

    rec.aviation.airline
        Airline operations, design, human factors, construction,
        airline histories, etc.  If created as a moderated group,
        Karl Swartz has volunteered to moderate it.

    sci.aeronautics.{airliners,transport}
        Airliner and transport-category aircraft-discussions, more 
        technical/abstract, less noise.  More concerned with airplanes
        than airlines.  If created as a moderated  group, Karl Swartz 
        has volunteered to moderate it.
                                            
    rec.aviation.airplanes
        General discussions of airplanes as "hardware."

    rec.aviation.binary
        Non-ascii files of interest to aviation users: software, GIF
        images, etc.

    rec.aviation.homebuilt
        Experimental/home-built aircraft.

    rec.aviation.maintenance
        Maintenance of general aviation aircraft, from all perspectives,
        owner or otherwise.

    rec.aviation.medical
        Medical issues: vision, heart, physiological effects of 
        aviation, etc.

    rec.aviation.military
        Military aviation, to move traffic (?) from sci.military.
        
    rec.aviation.safety
        Safety records, attainment of good ones, etc, crash-analysis,
        etc.

    rec.aviation.theory       
        Aerodynamic theory, modelling, powerplant theory and operation, 
        formulas and equations, from a practitioner's viewpoint (i.e., 
        pilots, not aero engineers).
        
"Training" groups:

    rec.aviation.careers
        Discussions on aviation careers, by those moving up the ladder
        as well as those on the top.  How to bridge the awful gulf between
        a commercial rating and the ATP.  How to get hired.  Airline
        careers.

    rec.aviation.cfi
        Training from the instructor's viewpoint.  See rec.aviation.training.

    rec.aviation.student
        Moving up the ladder, from the student pilot's perspective.  
        Oriented toward student pilots.  
            
    rec.aviation.training
        Moving up the ladder, in general, from all perspectives.


"Something else?"
        
    rec.aviation.___________
    
        Pick a topic not mentioned above!
        
        
        
--------------------------------  Cut here ----------------------------------
    
Purpose
    
    There have been a number of re-organization proposals in the last few 
    months.  In replying, a lot of people have resorted to arbitrary 
    approaches to oppose or support groups.  Even the people proposing new 
    groups have tended to rely too much on *posted* opinions, which aren't 
    necessarily indicative of how people will vote in an actual CFV. In
    many cases, such people have grossly underestimated the breadth of 
    support for the groups they support.
    
    This is intended to provide harder data.  In recent years, group-votes 
    have tended to hinge on consensus *before* the actual voting period.  
    Rather than rely on the most *vocal* users' opinions, this survey 
    attempts to give users the option to register their "raw" support or 
    opposition to the proposal.  It will, thus, hopefully help keep the
    flames or arguments over "arbitrariness" to a minimum.

    We ask two basic questions: WHETHER to re-organize rec.aviation, and,
    if so, HOW to re-organize it.  Your collective answers will be 
    considered in an impending call-for-votes on the subject.
    
    Please take time to answer this survey.  It will be used, along with
    the RFD posted by Geoff Peck, to hammer out a final call-for-votes. 
    It's VERY important that we get a good idea of user preferences.  If
    you  do not reply, a CFV could be issued which may not be entirely 
    representative  of user preferences, and *still* pass a final vote.

*   The survey is NOT binding.  As an individual, you're free to issue a 
*   completely different vote when the actual voting process occurs.  View 
*   this as a "primary": you're helping decide which groups get on the final 
*   CFV "ballot."  Respond, or suffer the consequences. :-)  
    
    In the survey, whenever the word "vote" is used, it's in respect
    to this survey, not the final call-for-votes.
    
    Please keep two questions in mind: (a) if a group or reorganization is 
    created, would it significantly change the traffic on rec.aviation, 
    and (b) do you think you would USE the group?  Try to ask yourself  
    "how would it affect the net?" rather than simply "would it help ME?"
    If you do like the group *idea*, envision whether having a real, live
    newsgroup with the given *name* might actually be workable.  Note also
    that *not* caring for traffic is as valid a reason for voting FOR a group
    as DESIRING a group dedicated to the traffic.

Survey period

    The survey will be held from 1600 CST on July 14 through 1600 CST on 
    July 28.  All replies will be publicly accessible via anonymous ftp in 
    misc/av/re-organization/votes on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, when the voting
    process is over.
    
    Summaries of current voting will be posted to rec.aviation, 
    sci.aeronautics, news.groups, and rec.travel.air on July 29. 


Important notes:

    This version of the survey is based on the first one, with most of the
    verbiage pushed to the end.  We hope it is more intuitive than the first
    one; the fine print's down here, for those who want more guidance.
    
    On the creation of *.misc:
    
       Net.convention has been to automatically create a "misc" newsgroup
       once a group re-organizess at all; this is were all "non-specialized"
       traffic goes.  This vote would make it an option: failure
       to create such a newsgroup can have dire consequences on the
       usefulness of a re-organization (for instance, fly-ins and chit-chat 
       being discussed in an ifr group).

    Why ten groups?
        
        To get users to think about it.  Both fewer than ten and more than 
        ten votes will be considered.
        
    Group-rating
        
        We're trying to figure out what the rec.aviation usership as a whole
        wants.  So, if you feel REALLY strongly about a group, give it a 
        10.  If you're less sure, pick a lower number.  For example, if you 
        feel that rec.aviation.ifr should ABSOLUTELY be created, enter a 10, 
        but if you feel that rec.av.students would be okay, but you don't 
        feel strongly about it, enter a 1.  If you enter all 1's to your 
        ten groups, that's okay, just as all 10's would be.  
        
    Positive referendum?
    
        The survey is intended to measure strength, not weakness.  There is 
        no provision to criticize a possible group.  Please answer the group-
        questions, even if you're opposed to the re-organization: it will
        help "cover yourself," should this go to a real vote, and the groups
        be created.  
        
    Themes
    
        The various groups have been sorted by general "themes."  In many
        cases, there is overlap (for instance, av.ifr would be both a heavy
        "regulatory" style group, and a "flying" group); the author of the 
        survey only offers the groupings to make the "sorting" process easier.
    
        An error was made in the original survey, placing both the history
        and warbirds groups under the "social" classification.  They should
        be regarded as technical/miscellaneous groups; I am keeping them
        in "Social" area solely to make it a bit easier to tabulate the votes.
        
*       The groupings should NOT be construed as official parts of the 
        charters.


Less important notes:

    The supplied pseudo-charters are intended to give the "gist" of
    possible content, as well as to suggest possible conflicts.  For 
    instance, "rec.aviation.legal" is very similar to rec.aviation.regulatory, 
    but only rec.aviation.regulatory could be construed as supporting IFR or
    ATC discussions.  Similarly, a rec.aviation.hang-gliding could easily 
    be argued to be a subset of a "soaring" newsgroup's charter. 
    
*   Note that the *name* of a non-moderated group is often much more 
*   important than any charter developed for it.
    
    In the final CFV, the charters may be revised in small ways, in order
    to  achieve a final "fine-tuning" of the top newsgroups, without a
    second survey.   In groups with clear similarities, the CFV author may
    choose one group over the other--for instance, we wouldn't really want
    rec.aviation.student  *and* rec.aviation.training, at least at this
    stage.

    All traffic will be archived on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, in
    public-readable files in the ftp area (misc/av/votes).  

    

Caveat

    This is *not* the RFD.  Please do not discuss it; by itself, it's a 
    "non-event."  It's just a poll on how people feel about a re-
    organization.  Save the flames for the RFD. :-)
    


Glossary:

    RFD: Request for Discussion--30-day discussion period prior to
    newsgroup vote.
    
    CFV: Call for Votes: 21-31-day voting period, the results of which
    determine whether the group should be created.