alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (12/02/89)
PROPOSAL I would like to start a discussion on the creation of rec.aquaria. This would have the following charter: - rec.aquaria: A group to discuss the hobby of keeping, raising, and breeding fish, invertebrates, and plants in fresh, brackish, and salt water tanks. This discussion period will end on Monday 18 December. If the discussion is positive, it will be followed by a Call for Votes on that date. This Call for Votes will only be made if Peter de Silva voluntarily withdraws his current vote - I will not run this as an interference vote. RATIONALE I don't think that anyone doubts the justification for an aquaria group. Alt.aquaria has demonstrated the viability, interest, and volume needed for a mainstream group. The recent sci.aquaria vote gathered almost 1000 votes, and managed to pass despite widespread opposition to the name and charter. I think that there are two clear reasons why this is not a violation of the 'six month rule' prohibiting consecutive votes. First, this is a different group and charter than sci.aquaria. This is clearly meant to be a forum for hobbyist exchanges. Scientific input would be expected and welcome, but the focus is on the hobbyist. Second, it is becoming clear that sci.aquaria is stillborn due to admin opposition. In fact, many of these have stated that they would actually begin to support sci.aquaria if there was a rec group to remove the hobbyist traffic. I think that it is clear that the rec.aquariUM vote failed for two reasons: - It was perceived (probably correctly) as an interference vote being run by someone who was an outsider to the group for the sole purpose of disturbing the sci.aquaria vote. - It used the suffix .aquarium, which is not the clearly preferred suffix among the current users. As much as I would like to use a multiple choice voting scheme, discussion of them is still active and none has been accepted as the clear choice, much less as part of the 'official' Usenet voting guidelines. The choice that I am using, rec.aquaria, is the leading rec. choice from the name poll that was run, and it also demonstrated the strongest support in the sci.aquaria debate. Finally, I should discuss why I am trying to run this vote in place of Peter's. Let me be quite honest. I was a supporter of sci.aquaria. I am also an active poster from alt.aquaria. Peter was one of the most vocal opponents of sci.aquaria and isn't a participant. Furthermore, Peter's current vote clearly violates Usenet guidelines (no call for discussion, non-standard voting system). Let me make something clear. I am NOT trying to roast Peter here. I suspect that he is doing what he is doing to try to 'fix' the current sci.aquaria problem. However, between being an 'outsider' and violating Usenet conventions this proposal has already stirred the flames back into life. I would like to do this in as quiet and calm a manner as possible, and douse down the flames instead of encouraging them. I think that Peter is trying to do the same thing that I am, I just think that this way is more likely to lead to a concensus that will let the whole thing die peacefully. I hope that I can get Peter to join me and form a 'coalition party' to get this think quickly and peacefully resolved. If not, I will not call for a contrary vote. I will not push for any kind of ballot stuffing or even heavily lobby for this proposal, and I encourage others to be similarily restrained. FINAL NOTES As a relative novice in the process of newgroup creation, I would appreciate someone e-mailing me a copy of the guidelines covering newgroup creation. I believe that I have fulfilled the disclosure and the discussion requirements of the guidelines. -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (12/02/89)
It's about time that someone made a responsible attempt to clear up the aquaria controversy. There is no reason why rec.aquaria and sci.aquaria can't peacefully co-exist as separate groups. I am curious, though, about what DaSilva thinks is supposed to happen after his STD vote is finished. -- John Berryhill Richard Sexton Sycophant #475-D 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang) (12/02/89)
The postings in alt.aquaria seem to be pretty useful. It is at least
interesting to me. I would suport the creation of rec.aquaria if it
ever comes to a vote.
I should mention that we don't get sci.aquaria at our site. Instead of
decreasing net distribution, changing the group to rec.aquaria would
probably increase its present net distribution.
-Thomas Wang ("This is a fantastic comedy that Ataru and his wife Lum, an
invader from space, cause excitement involving their neighbors."
- from a badly translated Urusei Yatsura poster)
ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.eduBRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (12/03/89)
I question the timeliness of holding another name vote at this time. I suggest we postpone this vote for six months or so as most readers whether they participated in the debate or not are fed up with endless discussion of rather uninteresting subjects. Isn't there are forum out there somewhere for those who wish to continue this discussion other than this one? John
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (12/03/89)
Indeed, what is it with you people? This group has been filled for almost two months with pointless bickering over a meaningless topic. The whole *purpose* of the "voting" system was (and I was there) to try at least to make the debate go away once the "vote" was done. All of you seeking to pour sodium on the closing wounds -- what is your purpose? This debate went on for ages, and *both* *sides* *lost*. The sci.aquaria folks got that group, but with low propagation. What do you want, to make both sides lose even more? LEAVE IT ALONE. GO AWAY. If you have to start a mailing list for the discussion of sci.aquaria. I have seen by now dozens of postings of disgust. WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE. STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHIES AND WHAT GROUP THEY GO IN. There, my first real flame in quite a while. Capital letters and everything. Please respect it. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) (12/04/89)
[BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) recently posted that: | | I question the timeliness of holding another name vote at this time. |I suggest we postpone this vote for six months or so as most readers |whether they participated in the debate or not are fed up with endless |discussion of rather uninteresting subjects. Isn't there are forum |out there somewhere for those who wish to continue this discussion other |than this one? John Hear! Hear! Yes, those really dying to discuss the fine points can use alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria for it! Let's move on. - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "In the carriages of the past you can't UUCP: buita \ go anywhere." -- Maxim Gorkey talcott } !encore!cook bellcore /
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) (12/05/89)
In article <55845@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > > If you have to start a mailing list for the discussion of sci.aquaria. > I have seen by now dozens of postings of disgust. WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE. > STOP POSTING ABOUT FISHIES AND WHAT GROUP THEY GO IN. Brad, I couldn't have said it better myself. Some time ago I made a posting entitled "Enuf is Enuf" where I stated that there was alot of bandwidth being "wasted" on this cross-flaming. It is still true. In the end Richard got his newsgroup and the people who wanted a 'pure' heirarchy killed the distribution. I'm not seggesting that either of these two parties were right, but as has been openly admitted by all, if the fish group had been put in rec.* instead of sci.* to begin with, this entire flamefest would never had happened. Everyone won the battles, everyone lost the war. The time has passed to put it to bed before we all incure the cost of trafficing additional bandwidth on a topic that most of us want to just see die. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (12/09/89)
In article <5142@nigel.udel.EDU>, John Berryhill writes:
*It's about time that someone made a responsible attempt to clear
*up the aquaria controversy. There is no reason why rec.aquaria
*and sci.aquaria can't peacefully co-exist as separate groups.
quite right. my main objection to sci.aquaria was that i didn't
think that it would work unless a parallel rec.aquaria existed,
hence my abstention from the vote (and abstention from the flamage,
for that matter.) i'll cheerfully vote for rec.aquaria with
retention of sci.aquaria
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
..!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
``i've got a girlfriend with bows in her hair,
and nothing is better than that'' -- David Byrne