richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/16/89)
Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue
(public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups,
and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite
was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this
becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to
go ahead and call for votes.
Some articles in alt.aquaria belong in a rec group, some
articles belong in a sci group.
Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe
and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example
doesn't go to Germany and Holland).
Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the
volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume,
high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries
is less than desirable.
So how can a compromise be met ?
I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure
world wide distribution.
I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that
the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close
eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept
within North America. Technical articles should be allowed
to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of
fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within
the continent.
If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical
articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five,
the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator,
although I have no problems with anybody else doing it.
The vote begins Monday, October 16, 1989 at Midnight, and
ends, thirty days later on November 15, 1989 at midnight, when
the results will be tallied and posted.
As usual, posted votes do not count, mail your votes to:
--
Help wipe out BBQ lighter fluid in your lifetime
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVchuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/16/89)
>Whats the difference ? It turns out that sci goes to Europe >and rec, for the most part, doesn't. (rec, for example >doesn't go to Germany and Holland). >Now, this is probably for a reason, ie. they don't want the >volume, which is understandable. But to restrict a low volume, >high quality technical group like .aquaria from these countries >is less than desirable. >I propose then, to move alt.aquaria to sci.aquaria to ensure >world wide distribution. On the other hand, if rec.aquaria really *is* as good a group as you claim it is going to be, the Europeans should have no trouble convincing themselves that it's worth adding to the newsfeed, like they have for other useful groups outside of comp.* and sci.*. This is not a good reason for warping the name space. Aquaria belongs in rec. In fact, this kind of argument is self-defeating -- if sci.aquaria goes through just to get european distribution, then you can bet that other groups are going to try the same ploy. Once you set that precedent, you're simply going to open the door to making sci the same kind of domain that soc or rec are -- and force the europeans to consider whether a full feed of sci is really a good idea after all. I strongly suggest a no vote on sci.aquaria. This should be a rec group. If sci.aquaria fails, I will immediately call for a vote on either rec.pets.aquaria or rec.aquaria to create the group in the proper name location. I strongly suggest that the net turn down Richards proposal and wait for the vote to create the group where it belongs. If the Europeans really want it, they can get it in rec. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] Anyone who thinks that the argument over {sci,rec}.fishies is about group names doesn't understand the system.
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) (10/17/89)
I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for
this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the
discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion
worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer.
Johncsg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/17/89)
>I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for >this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the >discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion >worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer. *SIGH* Can't we ever have a discussion like this without attacking people's motives? Chuq's comments are those of an experienced net user and former administrator who is at least *trying* to provide some consistency in the namespace. His participation in the group or lack thereof is irrelevant. We used to have a lot of people who did this sort of thing. Now we only have a few, since the flamers chased away most of the oldtimers. <csg>
rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) (10/17/89)
BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes about Chuq's posting against sci.aquaria: > I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for > this group quite self serving. If he was a regular participant in the > discussions in this group I would accept his comments as an opinion > worth considering. As it stands his comments are those of a kibitzer. I suspect that Chuq's article was simply a followup to Richard's article, hence used the same set of "Newsgroups:" in the header, to reach the same audience. Obviously John wasn't objecting to the news.groups posting-- Chuq is nothing if not a "regular participant" there. If he's targeting the inclusion of rec.pets, I'll echo Chuq's position. Since I'm a regular participant in rec.pets, will you accept my opinion as "worth considering?" As often as I've written about "scientific" viewpoints (i.e., biology, behavior studies, etc.) on cats in rec.pets, and occasionally even written about business aspects of raising cats, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that discussions of cats go anywhere but in a rec group. I see more self- serving aspects to Richard's approach--which now seems to be admitted as selecting "sci" over "rec" to force the distribution wider. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870 ...No DOS. UNIX.
jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (10/17/89)
> Richard Sexton writes: > > Since there was no clear cut resolution on the name issue > (public sentiment ran high against sci.aquaria in news.groups, > and in favour of rec.aquaria, while in my mailbox the opposite > was true, along with echos of ``I didn't want to post this > becasue I didn't want to get flamed'') I have decided to > go ahead and call for votes. If you had actually been reading news.groups, you would also have seen the series of articles that requested a multiple vote with several names. The idea was that a YES or NO vote could be made for each name. Then, if more than one name passed, either the name with the most YES votes, the name with the least NO votes, or the name with the most spread between YES and NO (or all of them) could be further considered. Many people indicated that they were in favor of this scheme. You have chosen to ignore public sentiment by your own admission (see above quote). I therefore feel that you will similarly ignore my wishes as a reader of, and regular contributor to *.aquari*. > I propose I will also act as an informal moderater in that > the group will not be moderated, but I will keep a close > eye on what is going around the world vs. what is kept > within North America. Technical articles should be allowed > to propogate worldwide. Requests such as ``what kind of > fish go good with pearl gouramis'' should be kept within > the continent. > > If in 6 months (and 12, and 18) the number of non-technical > articles with a Distribution: world line exceeds twenty five, > the group will become moderated. Probbaly with me as moderator, > although I have no problems with anybody else doing it. If I can get mail through to you, you will receive my NO vote on sci.aquaria. Please do not interpret this as a vote against becoming a mainstream group or even as a vote against a specific name for this group. Please interpret it as a vote specifically against you as a pseudo-moderator. Based on your performance in this matter, I do not feel that your interests coincide with my interests. I further do not feel that your "offer" to "volunteer" as a pseudo-censor are in the best interests of *.aquari*. You will never, under any circumstances receive my vote as censor. You have demonstrated your insensitivity. Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily and do not represent nor in any way imply of any other sane person and especially not employer. "I'd like to see this petty bickering ended so we could get to some more important bickering." -- David Bedno
bub@Morgan.COM (Bubbette McLeod) (10/17/89)
In article <3248@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu>, BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > > I find Chuq Von Rospach's remarks opposing Richard's proposed name for > this group quite self serving. chuqui is a big know it all and always has been. i don't expect him to change in the immediate future
alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (10/19/89)
In article <1475@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: >If you had actually been reading news.groups, you would also >have seen the series of articles that requested a multiple >vote with several names. The idea was that a YES or NO vote could >be made for each name. Then, if more than one name passed, either >the name with the most YES votes, the name with the least NO votes, >or the name with the most spread between YES and NO (or all of >them) could be further considered. > >Many people indicated that they were in favor of this scheme. As one of the people who was in news.groups pushing for multiple votes (I was actually the one that posted the (to me simple and obvious) scheme that has gotten the recent support), let me play devil's advocate (how appropriate ;-) and stick up for Richard. The multiple vote proposal is just that, a proposal. It is not the accepted Usenet protocol for generating a new group or renaming an existing group. If Richard had tried to use a multiple vote proposal, others would be well within their rights to contest the entire vote - and given the rather high temperature over there in news.groups, I'm sure someone would have. Richard did the accepted thing in current Usenet protocol. He was the original poster who asked for the group creation, so he has the right to decide the name to be used for the vote. If you don't like the name so much that you find it offensive, just vote no. If sci. fails, he has the right to resubmit the vote with a different name. If he does not, someone else can. Please calm down just a bit. If you disagree with him, just vote no. If he is really doing something slimy (as you imply), you will be joined by enough people that Richard won't be able to get the name to pass (you need 100 more yes votes than no votes). -- --------| You've got the political savvy Alien | of a hangnail. --------| - John Meneghini decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien