jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (04/13/91)
Prologue: Some of you expressed interest in the SCI.TECH-COMM proposal and may have wondered what became of it. After extensive discussions, it was merged with a near-simultaneous proposal for MISC.WRITING. I endorse that proposal (relayed below) and encourage those who are interested in any aspect of technical communication to participate. --Joe >This is the second Request for Discussion regarding the proposed >newsgroup, misc.writing. Voting shall be held from April 28 through >May 28. > >Post your comments to news.groups or send them to leah@smith.chi.il.us >or leah%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com (or if all else fails, in care of >smithr@ast.dsd.northrop.com). > >HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS DISCUSSION >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >The idea of a newsgroup for writers first came up when Peter Franks >suggested "rec.arts.writing" on Feb. 16. I had been about to propose a >writing group myself when he beat me to it. Instead, I followed up, >recommending "misc.writing" as more appropriate for a general writing >newsgroup. Informal discussion ensued. Meanwhile, Joseph Chew put in a >Request for Discussion of "sci.tech-comm," a technical communication >newsgroup, on March 7. > >Chew's proposal met with some controversy, for a variety of reasons, and >he agreed to consider coming under the umbrella of the general writing >group, and to hold off on a Call for Votes on sci.tech-comm until after >the formal discussion of misc.writing. > >I wrote a Request for Discussion of misc.writing and it was posted March >28. Since then, 34 people have contributed to the discussion (as of >postings received here by April 10). *No one* has objected to the >creation of a writing group. > >NON-WORDS AND TECHNO-TRIVIA >Discussion of the integration of the various facets of technical >communication which aren't, strictly speaking, "writing" has taken up a >lot of bandwidth; however, this controversy has almost exclusively been >among four people. I'm therefore content to let the rather open-ended >wording of my original proposal stand. > >ONE NEWSGROUP OVER ALL >Only four individuals felt strongly that a single newsgroup would be >insufficient to begin with. Almost everyone else felt that we should >see what the traffic is like first. Many said that they did more than >one kind of writing themselves or wanted to exchange ideas with writers >of other genres. Several people pointed out that all forms of writing >have much in common. > >SORTING OUT THE KITCHEN SINK >Many have supported the idea of carefully identified subject lines so >that people can easily avoid those subjects they don't care to read. I >intend to encourage this strongly through a periodic posting to the >newsgroup. I have been collecting advice on kill files and other >tactics for weeding out unwanted subjects and will gladly share. >(Newsreader experts: send me your ideas, please.) > >KEEP YOUR WRITING TO YOURSELF >Enough people felt strongly that misc.writing should not be a place to >post examples of one's work for critical analysis that I have amended >the charter to make it more emphatic on this point. Only two posters >supported the concept of an on-line writers' workshop at all. The idea >of the newsgroup as a meeting place for those who want to exchange works >for critiquing via e-mail was well received, however. > >THERE IS A TIME FOR EVERY PURPOSE >A couple of people suggested cutting the formal discussion short; one >person objected vehemently. I was inclined to be middle of the road >until I noticed the first-time comment from Edinburgh posted on April 5, >eight days after the RFD was posted. That article took several more >days to get here. Those of you who have good connections to the >Internet tend to forget the lag-time for us out in the hinterlands >(connectively speaking). Besides, the April 28 to May 28 voting dates >work out better for processing here. > >Following is the proposed misc.writing charter and supporting material, >amended slightly from its first appearance. (I took out my crack about >editors. Sorry, but I'm an officer of a Newspaper Guild unit about to >go into nasty negotiations -- conditions are definitely adversarial.) > >TENTATIVE CHARTER >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Misc.writing is a forum for discussion of writing in all its forms -- >scholarly, technical, journalistic, artistic and mere day-to-day >communication. It is a venue for professional writers, would-be >professionals and all those who write to communicate. > >Misc.writing is primarily about writing in English. As such, it >includes consideration of linguistics, grammar and style as they relate >to composition. It is not, however, limited to discussion of writing >for print -- topics may include a variety of other media and means of >communication. > >In addition to discussion about the process of writing, misc.writing >also addresses writing as a trade, including (but not limited to) >reviews of books about writing; notices of workshops and writers' group >meetings; and information about marketing and publishing. Tools for >writing may be a topic, as well. > >Questions about how to write, writing problems and how to improve one's >writing are welcome, but long excerpts of written works should not be >posted. However, the group may serve as a meeting place for those who >wish to exchange works to critique via e-mail. > >Although the group is general in nature, misc.writing welcomes >discussions about specific forms of writing; contributors are encouraged >to identify their topic by including explicit tags such as "TECHNICAL:" >or "JOURNALISM:" in subject lines. > >Such guidelines shall be enforced by peer pressure only. >Misc.writing is an unmoderated newsgroup. >============================================================ > >WHY ANOTHER NEW GROUP? >Almost everyone writes -- if not books and articles, then memos to >colleagues or letters to mother. Writing is critical to most >professionals' jobs, whether it be the major part of their work or >simply the documentation of it. > >At present, there is no group for general discussion of writing. >Related discussions therefore tend to be all over the net, with sci.lang >and rec.arts.books taking the brunt of them. The latter, as its >regulars should agree, is already large enough without this traffic. > >Two groups on the alt.net, alt.prose and alt.prose.d exist, but they are >devoted to fiction and were, according to one of the founders, "created >primarily to allow writers to have their works of fiction (or >non-fiction, but the emphasis has always been on the former) read and >critiqued (in the .d group) by their fellow writers." > >Posting of written works will be discouraged in misc.writing, where the >emphasis will be discussions of the process and business of writing. >While everyone who writes in any capacity is welcome, the primary focus >is on those who do it for a living -- on this network, that means mainly >journalists and technical writers. > >Various groups in the comp hierarchy discuss aspects of technical >communication, but do not adequately provide a forum for the many >technical writers on the net. > >The creation of misc.writing may be the beginning of a hierarchy. If >traffic justifies it, further groups could be proposed, along the lines of: > >misc.writing >misc.writing.technical >misc.writing.journalism >misc.writing.educational >misc.writing.fiction >misc.writing.grammar >misc.writing.biff, etc. > >However, we will begin with the initial group, misc.writing, and >see how it goes. > >WHY MISC? >Because there is no other good fit. The rec.arts hierarchy is out >because of the professional leaning of the proposed group. It's >difficult to make a case for writing as a science, and "sci.writing" >would in any case have the effect of misleading people into thinking it >was for writing about science. > >WHAT NEXT? >Post your comments to news.groups. You may also send e-mail to me at >the address below. I ask that those who have already made their >feelings known refrain from repeating themselves. If you have something >new to add, or are new to the discussion, please join in. Voting begins >April 28. > >Almost everyone writes, for one reason or another, and a common ground >for discussion of the process and its peculiarities is greatly needed on >the net. Even the best of professionals can benefit from others' tips, >and those for whom writing is a necessary chore can find help from those >who do it constantly. > >And if misc.writing turns out to be a means for improving the general >quality of writing on the net, all the better. Let's consider it. >-- >L.A.Z. Smith leah@smith.chi.il.us >Wheeling, Illinois >leah%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com >(If the above don't work, send mail to: > smithr@ast.dsd.northrop.com) > > CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DISCUSSION THUS FAR > alberti@boombox.micro.UMN.EDU (Bob Alberti) > andy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Andrew Hackard) > barney@emx.utexas.edu (Barney C. McCartney) > bentson@sumax.seattleu.edu (Cindy Bentson) > clm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Cari L. McAskill) > cnorman@ucsd.edu (Cyndi Norman) > daj@reef.cis.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) > dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) > durrell@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) > ellen@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Ellen M. McDonald) > fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) > fscll@acad3.alaska.edu (Christopher L. Lott) > geyer@galton.uchicago.edu (Charles Geyer) > gregory@csri.toronto.edu (Kate M. Gregory) > hans@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Hans Huttel) > hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Hyche) > Jeff.Abbott@hub.dsg.ti.com (Jeff Abbott) > joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields) > jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) > jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) > ken@racerx.UUCP (Ken Hardy) > leah@smith.chi.il.us (L.A.Z. Smith) > lmann%jjmhome@m2c.m2c.org (Laurie Mann) > LNH1@pasvax.physics.arizona.edu (Larry Hammer) > lvron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) > raisch@Control.COM (Robert Raisch) > rcharman@burn.Princeton.EDU (Robert Craig Harman) > rmr@sgi.com (Robert Reimann) > salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Linden Salter-Duke) > sfleming@cs.hw.ac.uk (Stewart T. Fleming) > stevep@dgp.toronto.edu (Stephen Portigal) > tmaddox@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Maddox) > vortex@vpnet.chi.il.us (Jason J. Levit) > writer@irie.ais.org (Dan Romanchik)