[news.groups] FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION on engineers' newsgroup

lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) (08/03/90)

FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION on engineers' newsgroup(s)
(was misc.engineers and before that, was talk.engineering.education)

Please follow-up to news.groups or via e-mail only.  People are starting
to complain about follow-ups.

Purposes of discussion:

(1) To determine where the engineers' group(s) belong: under sci or misc;
(2) To determine whether we need one group or two.

The charters for two groups, named sci.engr.edu and sci.engr.misc, 
would be composed of the same elements as the charter for the previous
misc.engineers proposal, as follows:

Charter for sci.engr.edu:

(1) To discuss strengths and weaknesses in engineering education,
    and offer suggestions for improvement where applicable.
(2) To inform participants of interesting university programs or
    curriculums.
(3) To help participants to prepare for advancement academically
    and professionally.

Charter for sci.engr.misc:

(1) To help participants to define or create a positive public
    image/understanding of engineering.
(2) To apply problem-solving techniques to the elimination of 
    job-related problems.
(3) To address all other engineering-related issues.

The status for each is still unmoderated.  Contact me with comments/
questions.  The call for votes will be held on or about 08/24.

Here are the reasons for proposing changes: the group appears to
be a better fit for sci than misc because of (1) the technical 
underlying nature of most problems to be addressed in each group;
(2) more prospective contributors regularly follow sci than misc
groups.  The reason for proposing two groups over one is based on
volume and variance of discussion subjects.

Ronald E. Graham
NASA Lewis Research Center
lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov

blackje@sunspot.crd.ge.com (J. Emmett Black) (08/06/90)

In article <1990Aug3.163655.28047@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION on engineers' newsgroup(s)
>(was misc.engineers and before that, was talk.engineering.education)
>
>Please follow-up to news.groups or via e-mail only.  People are starting
>to complain about follow-ups.
>
>Purposes of discussion:
>
>(1) To determine where the engineers' group(s) belong: under sci or misc;
>(2) To determine whether we need one group or two.
>
>The charters for two groups, named sci.engr.edu and sci.engr.misc, 


Why should engineering be under either sci or misc ?
Why not have a "top-level" newsgroup for engineering?

Then we could have "engr.software," "engr.systems," "engr.power,"
"engr.chem," "engr.edu," "engr.misc," "engr.professional" and others.

--
--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com