From: tlynch@cco.caltech.edu (Timothy W. Lynch)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current
Subject: Re: do we need rec.arts.startrek.dsn?
Date: 26 Dec 1992 06:57:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

msmallwo@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (M. Lee Smallwood) writes:

>A new list...

>TNG
>DSN

And the TNG/DSN crossovers once again cause Newsgroup Hell [TM].  There's a 
problem right off the bat.

>TOS

Virtually empty 90% of the time.  And if future TOS-cast films are made, are 
they here or do you propose yet another group to deal with them?

>ST misc (moderated -- STRICTLY anything that doesn't go
>         anywhere else)

I'll deal with this below, but I think you're unclear on what "moderated" 
means.  There's also a hell of a lot that "doesn't go anywhere else".

>B5

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

"Babylon 5" has zero relation to Trek, and should be left out of Trek-related
groups as a disparate entity.  The *only* place B5 should have in the r.a.s.*
hierarchy is in whatever comparisons will inevitably be made between it and
Trek-related series (such as DS9).

>TNG - DSN crossovers

Okay, this settles the "where would the crossovers go" question.  However, 
*now* you're proposing a group that will be absolutely empty except in rare 
occasions.  And when it *does* come into play, you're saying people have to 
suddenly remember to change from the "regular" series-specific groups to this
group.  Lee, the majority of r.a.s.*'ers aren't following the charters of
r.a.s.current and r.a.s.misc; what makes you think this will work any better?

[...]

>What we should do (under this plan)

Don't take this the wrong way, Lee, but if you're really serious about trying
to improve the organization of the r.a.s.* hierarchy (which clearly you appear
to be), then the first thing you should do is read news.announce.newusers,
news.announce.newgroups, and news.groups for about a month until you
understand the ins and outs of how Usenet group creation works.  

(Believe me, this isn't meant to be condescending; far from it.  Your
initiative is wonderful, but both the style and substance of your proposals
suggest that you're extremely "innocent of the ways of Usenet", and for your
own safety you need to understand what you're getting into before you throw
yourself to the news.groups wolves.  :-) )

The next thing that would need to happen before you did *anything* is that
a reasonable consensus needs to be gotten *within the hierarchy* that your
(or someone's proposal) is worth doing.  Unless you've got significant
support here, you haven't a prayer of doing anything more.  

>Propose (how do you do that?) B5 and DSN groups.

>THEN (if there is still a problem)

Another point which you may not be aware of:  Even if you had picture-perfect
support for the structure you propose now, your proposed B5 and DS9 groups
wouldn't be in place *at all* for six weeks minimum, and the transition 
wouldn't be close to complete for probably two months beyond that.  Although
the transmission of information is nigh unto instantaneous on the net, 
changing net.structure is *not*.

>WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS TOMORROW. 

Very true, and very good, since we *couldn't* do it tomorrow.

>We need to see what happens
>with DSN and B5 first. Misc is moderated because *we* don't
>want it to become like current is NOW. 

This is what I meant when I said you may not be clear on what being
moderated is.  It doesn't mean warning people about the charters; it means
that one person or small set of people reads *every single submission* to the
group and passes those that fit the charter.  If you think you could find 
someone to do that, more power to you; but I'd bet good money that no 
Usenet veteran would take that job unless heavily drugged.

I don't mean any of this to be discouraging, but I *do* mean it to get your
calls to action being a little less precipitous.  Proposals like this are
healthy even if they don't have a ghost of a chance of passing (which, in
my view, this one wouldn't), but until and unless you find out a bit more about
how the net works, you might be better off making the initial proposals and
then letting others handle the formalities if support is evident.  Good luck.

Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
BITNET:  tlynch@citjuliet
INTERNET:  tlynch@juliet.caltech.edu
UUCP:  ...!ucbvax!tlynch%juliet.caltech.edu@hamlet.caltech.edu
"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it also is a 
process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."
			--Allan Sandage
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current