chuqui@cae780.UUCP (12/20/83)
Well, here is my latest list of topics under consideration. It seems like
it was well received, and as long as we are considering a number of them
simultaneously, I'll try to update it every so often.
Previous topics now considered dead:
net.eulogy, net.nlang.*
Topics created:
net.games.go, net.tv.drwho
Topics under discussion:
net.sources.pc
I've gotten some good feedback on this, and it is probably a good idea
to split up unix and non-unix sources. Would net.sources.micro be a
better idea?
net.bio.*
There is still a BIG disagreement over net.bio.expert. Since
net.astro.expert is still highly experimental, I would suggest creating
net.bio and holding off on net.bio.expert until the astro combination
proves (or disproves) its efficacy. It looks like net.bio should be
created.
net.micro.trs
Someone still needs to create this group. I won't because its not
within my sphere of interests.
net.origins
Discussion is still very mixed here, and seems to be runing 50-50. If
we assume the creation of net.bio, does it handle the areas of origins
that other existing topics don't?
net.people
I think a better name would be net.news.people, because we are talking
about people configuration the way net.news.config talks about
machines. However, it may be that net.general is appropriate as well,
because I expect that volume will be reasonably low, and there will
probably be a number of people who unsubscribe to net.*people that you
might need to contact. Comments?
New topics under discussion:
net.olympics:
It seems to me the net.sports would be appropriate (and perhaps
net.travel for accomodations, and net.tv for ABC coverage). I would
really like to see some message volume before we create YAUT (Yet
Another Usenet Topic).
Comments, flames welcomemark@elsie.UUCP (12/21/83)
I agree that we should hold off on net.bio.expert untill net.bio becomes established. Biology is a huge topic: biochemistry; botany; biophysics; etc. Under the (perhaps dubious) assumption that biologists will eventially lose their terror of touching a terminal, I would expect subtopics such as net.bio.molecbio to become needed and created. But, for now, net.bio will suffice. At the same time, I do not want to see discussions of creationism vs evolution move into net.bio. That debate is politico-religious in nature and really belongs under net.religion (in my opinion). I am not a great supporter of net.origin, but I would rather see it created than see that stuff move into net.bio. -- UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/31/83)
#R:cae780:-23000:uokvax:9300012:000:1936
uokvax!rigney Dec 27 17:47:00 1983
=================================================================
net.bio.*
I agree, create net.bio, and if the professionals get too upset
at having to wade through matters of non-interest ask them to say
so, whereupon net.bio.expert can be created. I still think the
gap between professional and amateur biology is much greater than
the gap between pro and amateur astronomy, but agree that it's a
good idea to wait until we see how much interest there is in
subgroups.
net.origins
This will be a very high noise-to-use ratio group, like
net.religion and net.philosophy, but if we have those we should
have this too. I favor either net.origins or net.bio.origins, to
save the trouble of moving it out of net.bio later. The top
level group net.origins would be more appropriate since cosmology
is going to be discussed as well as evolution.
net.people
I agree that net.news.people is much better, and would prefer
this be in a group of its own rather than grouped in with
net.general. For one thing, it makes it easier to look through
if you're searching for someone's new location.
net.olympics:
I rather favor this being a top level group, instead of
net.sports.olympics, for two reasons. First, the old bugaboo of
name length. More importantly, to keep all the discussions in
one place, rather than scattering it over net.travel, net.tv,
net.sports, net.misc, and Who (sorry) knows where else. I think
it should be created now, so we don't need to discuss it again in
the future. The Winter Olympics are coming soon, so we might as
well. How about creating it Jan 2, 1984, with a notation that it
will be deleted on Jan 2, 1985? Of course, should it turn out to
be an issue of lasting interest, we can keep it:-)
In closing, I'd like to say that I really appreciate these
summaries.
Carl
..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney