From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: soc.culture.<whatever>.*   [ native/indigenous/aboriginal ]
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:06:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1992Dec17.070620.18662
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

In article <1992Dec17.023819.11899@gnosys.svle.ma.us> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.202012.9338@gnosys.svle.ma.us> gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

(The attribute line above was modified to avoid protecting the guilty,
which in this case really is Gary talking to himself...  :-)

>> ...I've looked through the
>> list of mainstream newsgroups, and have come up with several instances
>> of ".d" newsgroups attached to a parent newsgroup that itself carries
>> traffic (as opposed to using that parent newsgroup solely as a node for
>> associating a number of subgroups).  Those newsgroups are:

...

>Can someone make a brief comment for the benefit of those of us who aren't
>regular readers of news.groups what lies behind the creation of ".misc"
>newsgroups.  Thanks.

I can't comment so much on the ".misc", as on the ".d".  It generally
means "d for discussion", and is used in conjunction with groups in
which discussion would NOT be appropriate:  groups for sources,
binaries, jokes, stories, etc.

The ".d" group is where the discussion goes, and the other group is
purely for informational posts.  Hence there should never be a subject
header with "RE: ..." in the main group.  And the main group can be
archived automatically by scripts that do not have to determine the
appropriateness of the content (famous last words... :-).

My concept of what a ".misc" group would be is one where there are
various specific groups, each with a narrow subject definition,
and one ".misc" or ".other" group to catch everything that does
not fit a specific group.  An example would be the new hierarchy
for computer forsale articles, where there is a ".pc-clone", a
".mac", a ".workstation", and maybe others, plus one catchall for
everything else.  In that particular case it is an ".other"
group...  And, it happens that none of those groups are intended
for discussion, so there is also a ".d" group for that.

Also be aware the the comp.forsale hierarchy is a gross
abomination with mis-posted, cross-posted, off-topic, and
double-posted messages by the score.  The number of messages
posted correctly is probably fewer than the number done
incorrectly.  A poor choice of sub-group names and a lack
understanding of how to accomplish the desired result are, IMHO,
the reason it is such a mess.  The problem was originally a single
group with 100-200 articles per day that was very difficult to
wade through.  The "solution" resulted in a split into several
groups, so now one wades through a high percentage of the messages
more than once, and in multiple groups.  (A net loss of
functionality...) The reason such a poor choice was voted into
being, IMHO, was that most readers of the forsale groups are new
and or infrequent readers.  They just didn't understand that it
would work the way it does!  (They actually thought the only items
posted to ".pc-clone" would be items for pc-clones, and that someone
only interested in pc-clones would only see articles pertaining to
pc-clones!  :-)

I went into so much detail above to point out that it is naive to
suggest that the name is not really important, lets just get something
started...  We really need to determine what we want to accomplish
first.  Then we need to determine how it can be accomplished.  And
then we should pick a name for what we have come up with.

There is one naming convention into which the ".d" name would fit,
and another into which the ".misc" or ".other" would fit.  I find
the last two rather flat...  but the most often urged naming
convention is the one they fit:

   soc.culture.<whatever>.american
   soc.culture.<whatever>.alaskan
   soc.culture.<whatever>.siberian
   soc.culture.<whatever>.navajo
   soc.culture.<whatever>.other

The ".d" name has a nice sound, but fits a naming convention like:

   soc.culture.<whatever>.info
   soc.culture.<whatever>.native-l
   soc.culture.<whatever>.treaties
   soc.culture.<whatever>.tribal-statements
   soc.culture.<whatever>.d

While the first list has names that make the appropriate subject
matter obvious, the last list of names isn't perhaps that obvious.
In the second list, the first four would be informational postings
(which someone might well want to archive), and the discussions
resulting from those articles would only go in the ".d" group.

It would appear to me... that if we decide it is likely that
the hierarchy would ever be split into a number of groups along
one of the above line or the other, then we should select that
particular naming convention and go with it.  I suspect the concept
of the first list of names (either by geography or ethnic division)
is one that most people have been considering almost exclusively.
I also suspect that if all other things were equal (e.g. if we
could find a generic set of names that would not influence which
way it goes) that the second set is actually more likely to be
useful at some future time.

I say that because my vision of the future of networked discussions
of native cultures is a picture of many different cultures comparing
notes on how to deal with outside influences and other common problems.
To do that effectively almost requires that the discussion groups not
be separated by different cultures, but rather by different problems.

Floyd





-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu        A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska              system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
Newsgroups: news.groups