edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (02/07/90)
Rec.radio.misc is a wonderful idea. Some of the alternative suggestions are not, though. I think it is a misappropriation of net resources to create a group which can only benefit a select few, such as a group oriented towards radio broadcasters. It makes little difference whether commercial or non-commercial radio is concerned. It would be the same as restricting misc.legal to lawyers, sci.med to doctors, or comp.sys.ibm.pc to computer dealers and manufacturers. Even though lawyers, doctors, and dealers/manufacturers contribute to the latter lists, so do a large number of others who consume their services. Ideally, a radio group could serve as a way for radio listeners and broadcasters to communicate with each other as well as themselves. That is the sort of thing a public resource like USENET is best suited for. Some USENET subjects may be arcane, and of interest only to a few, but all people who wish to participate should be welcome. If someone wants only to communicate within their own select group, they should set up a mailing list. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of lists already, with memberships from ten to ten thousand. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) (02/07/90)
Around January 17, 1990, I posted: >This is a call for discussion on the creation of a new newsgroup >to provide a forum for the discussion of non-commercial radio. >Discussion will last no longer than February 10, 1990. >I believe the group should be unmoderated. In article <2843249899@lewis.crd.ge.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >Call for Discussion: rec.radio.misc >this is by way of formalizing things ... >in general, it seems a good way to vent off >unproven niche-radio group proposals: ``why not use rec.radio.misc >for a while and see if it flies''. I agree then that rec.radio.misc would be a good starting point. I hope a vote can be held soon. Is anyone going to the Intercollegiate Broadcasting Society Con. in March? Rob Gibson, General Manager, WREK 91.1 MHz 40000 watts of noncommercial diversity, 404/894-2468 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dsrekrg ARPA: dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edu
roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) (02/07/90)
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: >discussion will go on at least until after i finish counting votes >for soc.history; i'm not inclined to collect votes on two >proposals at once. discussion should go on ONLY in news.groups, >which is where followups to this article are directed. Why have a "misc" group? There isn't enough discussion in rec.radio.shortwave already; that is to say, discussion that would go well in rec.radio.shortwave still occurs in rec.ham-radio. One can comment on a few articles in rec.radio.shortwave, then come back later and see that you're the only one who's posted anything (resulting in a lot of cancellations out of embarassment at the silence :-)). Already a lot of the ham-radio folks say "we're interested in anything to do with radio," and this group was created mostly for the topics that were clearly not ham-radio (commercial shortwave, clandestine radio, questions about receive-only equipment, etc). I think rec.radio.shortwave is a good idea -- I would never have expected to see a posting from Havana Moon in rec.ham-radio -- but rec.radio.shortwave is just getting started off itself. Shucks, seems to me the topic is fairly well covered by the two groups we have, and too many new groups being created already. Let's keep it the way it is. -- Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)
dsrekrg@prism.gatech.EDU (Rob Gibson) (02/08/90)
This is getting confusing. All I want to do is take part in an
open forum for listeners and creators of noncommercial radio.
If starting at a *.*.misc level is a more acceptable way to start
discussions, then that is fine with me.
Rob Gibson, General Manager, WREK 91.1 MHz
40000 watts of non-commercial diversity, 404/894-2468
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!dsrekrg
ARPA: dsrekrg@prism.gatech.edunigel@sund.cc.ic.ac.uk (Nigel Whitfield) (02/08/90)
In article <1990Feb7.043914.20545@IDA.ORG> roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) writes: > >Why have a "misc" group? There isn't enough discussion in >rec.radio.shortwave already; that is to say, discussion that would go >well in rec.radio.shortwave still occurs in rec.ham-radio. One can >comment on a few articles in rec.radio.shortwave, then come back later >and see that you're the only one who's posted anything (resulting in >a lot of cancellations out of embarassment at the silence :-)). But the point is that we don't want to discuss shortwave radio. We want to discuss broadcast radio services, preferably of the non-commerical variety. While _some_ topics may be similar to those in ham discussions, a lot are totally different. We don't think that there is enough traffic for rec.radio.non-comm or whatever, so we're talking about rec.radio.misc. If that group is created, we can all chatter away to our hearts' content until we need a group of our own. I really don't think that discussions about broadcast issues would be very welcome in ham radio groups, so this is the best alternative for the time being. Nigel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Nigel Whitfield, | n.whitfield@cc.ic.ac.uk | | Community Radio Association. | poet@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Internet: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@cunyvm.cuny.edu | | BITNET: n.whitfield%cc.ic.ac.uk@UKACRL | | UUCP: ...!cernvax!cc.imperial.ac.uk!n.whitfield * NOT via ukc * | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) (02/09/90)
roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) writes: > ... but rec.radio.shortwave >is just getting started off itself. Shucks, seems to me the topic is >fairly well covered by the two groups we have, and too many new groups >being created already. Let's keep it the way it is. For those of you just joining us, let me explain. Rob from WREK proposed a group for the discussion of non-commercial radio, largely for use by the folks working in student radio stations. Over the past few weeks we've been debating content and naming of such a group. One or two people have made comments about this being too narrowly focused a group, in that commercial broadcasters or TV people might want to be included. We have been close to a consensus on what we want. In response to a post by welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty), it was pointed out that this might be too narrow a group to merit it's own newsgroup. However, it seems to me that we've almost figured out what we want. I suspect that richard simply wanted to make the discussion a bit more widely known, and draw more folks into the discussion. He seems to have succeeded. Shall we continue? William -- William J. Watson (cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, watson@halley.mpd.tandem.com, watson@halley.uucp)
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (02/10/90)
In article <662@halley.UUCP>, William Watson writes:
*In response to a post by welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty), it was
*pointed out that this might be too narrow a group to merit it's own newsgroup.
*However, it seems to me that we've almost figured out what we want. I suspect
*that richard simply wanted to make the discussion a bit more widely known,
*and draw more folks into the discussion. He seems to have succeeded.
*Shall we continue?
first of all, i am not a big fan of creating niche groups when
we don't yet have the more generic .misc group in place; this is
a problem i had with rec.radio.shortwave (although i didn't
protest very loudly, not wishing to stand in front of a very
large steamroller; i can tell a lost cause when i see one), and
a problem that i have with any new rec.radio.* proposal. this
is why i suggested rec.radio.misc at this time. there is clearly
volume on broadcast radio (buried in rec.audio, i'm told) and on
scanners (currently in rec.radio.shortwave, with occasional
appearances in rec.autos.sport); by themselves they may not justify
groups, but certainly they are enough to suggest that a .misc group
would be a generally good thing to have at this point.
i would probably abstain from a vote on a `non-comm' group in
rec.radio. i would be willing to bet that such a group won't
get enough yes votes to pass; i think a .misc group has a much
better chance, and better justification right at this point.
i'm willing to run a rec.radio.misc vote, starting in two or so
weeks; i really don't want to get into a pointless fight over
preempting a `non-comm' vote. if someone wants to run a vote
on a `non-comm' group, that's fine with me; i'll defer the
rec.radio.misc vote until after the `non-comm' vote comes to a
conclusion.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``gee, you can hardly tell where the cat slept on the cake''meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (02/10/90)
(William Watson) writes: |For those of you just joining us, let me explain. Rob from WREK proposed a |group for the discussion of non-commercial radio, largely for use by the |folks working in student radio stations. Over the past few weeks |we've been debating content and naming of such a group. One or two people |have made comments about this being too narrowly focused a group, in that |commercial broadcasters or TV people might want to be included. We have |been close to a consensus on what we want. Have we? I haven't seen a consensus (unless apparent lack of interest is a concensus, which I suppose it is, after a fashion). Personally, I don't think it's too narrowly focused any more than, say, rec.models.rockets. If the commercial people have some common concerns, they should bring those up now, and propose how they fit/don't fit into the proposed group, or why they sjhould be in another group, or whatever. Ditto the TV folk. -Miles
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/10/90)
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >Have we? I haven't seen a consensus (unless apparent lack of interest >is a concensus, which I suppose it is, after a fashion). lack of controversy implies either consensus or nobody caring. Only a vote will define which of the two possibilities is true. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (02/11/90)
In article <38496@apple.Apple.COM>, Chuq Von Rospach writes: *meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: *>Have we? I haven't seen a consensus (unless apparent lack of interest *>is a concensus, which I suppose it is, after a fashion). *lack of controversy implies either consensus or nobody caring. Only a vote *will define which of the two possibilities is true. i think that at this time, the advocates of the non-commerical radio group should decide whether or not they want to call for a vote on their proposal, either 1) running a vote or 2) letting us know so that i can contemplate starting a vote on rec.radio.misc i won't be in a position to call for the rec.radio.misc vote for two weeks, so there's plenty of time for the non-comm advocates to decide which way they want to go. richard -- richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty ``gee, you can hardly tell where the cat slept on the cake''
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (02/13/90)
In article <2843671299@lewis.crd.ge.com>, richard welty writes:
=i think that at this time, the advocates of the non-commerical
=radio group should decide whether or not they want to call for
=a vote on their proposal, either 1) running a vote or 2) letting
=us know so that i can contemplate starting a vote on rec.radio.misc
i have been informed via email that a vote for rec.radio.noncomm
will be called for shortly; therefore i shall defer any action
on rec.radio.misc (which i consider a good idea regardless of
the creation of a non-commerical radio group) until after that
vote ends.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``gee, you can hardly tell where the cat slept on the cake''watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson) (02/14/90)
richard welty writes: >i won't be in a position to call for the rec.radio.misc vote for >two weeks, so there's plenty of time for the non-comm advocates >to decide which way they want to go. He later posts that he has been informed that a formal call for votes on "rec.radio.non-comm" will be posted shortly. Have we decided that this is the proper name? I'm afraid that I may have missed the discussion by which the final name was agreed upon, as our gateway machine was ill for a few days. I will certainly admit that this proposed name will fit better in the existing heirarchies better than creating *.radio elsewhere than in rec, but we have had discussion about non-comm being less than obvious, and the desire to focus the group on the broadcasters, rather than the listeners. It may be only my personal bias (or cudgeled brain), but it seems to me that rec.radio.non-comm will be taken as a newsgroup for discussions by listeners to non-commercial radio stations. If indeed rec.radio.misc also comes into being, as richard proposes (humble apologies for misinterpreting your intentions, sir), then it seems to me that this view will likely prevail. I'm not particularly taken with the idea of continual cries of "That discussion doesn't belong in this group!", and suggest that the choice of a name may help. How does misc.broadcasters sound? If we cannot clear this within a week, it might seem that we should defer to richard welty, and let him conduct his vote while we debate any remaining issues. Of course, if I'm wrong, tell me to shut up. William -- William J. Watson (cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, watson@halley.mpd.tandem.com, watson@halley.uucp)