bukys (01/02/83)
With 45 users on 41 hosts responding, here are the results of the "Isolating the Star Wars Discussion" poll: 31 yes. 12 no. 2 undecided. Among the "yes" votes: 15 didn't propose a name. 10 want it to be a subgroup (most insist on it). 6 suggested a top-level name. Newsgroup name breakdown (some people made multiple suggestions): 1 net.sf-fans 1 net.sf-lovers.cretin [ :-) ] 1 net.sf-lovers.fans 1 net.sf-lovers.movies 3 net.sf-lovers.sw 1 net.sf-movie 1 net.sf.guess 1 net.sf.sw 2 net.starwars 2 net.sw 2 net.trivia.sw 1 (unspecified) Other "yes" statistics: 9 expressed disgust at the swamping of net.sf-lovers by this topic, and would probably unsubscribe any new group (and maybe the old one). Many responses were quite vehement. 2 acknowledged dependence on arpa sf-lovers policy, but think that the arpanetters would be glad to be rid of the stuff. Some "no" statistics: 7 thought the gateways to/from the arpanet make a split impractical or wrong. 4 predicted that the discussion will die down. Some observations: subgroups: Most people don't seem to know about various implementation limits, such as the limit on newsgroup name length. So, to everybody who suggested "net.sf-lovers.sw": try "net.sf.sw" on for size. the arpanet connection: Everyone seems to agree that it is nice for the arpa and usenet groups to share and enjoy. This requires rough correspondence of subject matter. Some suggest that we'd be doing a favor by getting this out of the arpanet moderator's hair. Some suggest that the moderator could read both groups. Some suggest that it's too much to ask the poor moderator to keep up with usenet politics. I would like to point out that in a similar situation (a wave of messages on "children's sf"), the moderator grouped them in "special editions" until the discussion died down. I haven't corresponded with the current moderator, so I don't know what he (or she?) would think of that. killing multiple birds with one stone: My polling article tried to rise above the topic of Star Wars and suggested finding somewhere to put other "fan" or "speculation" articles, which now end up in net.misc, net.startrek, net.wobegon, net.sctv (the latter two having no good reason to exist as far as I can tell). Most of the responses ignored this aspect of the poll. I must assume it's not a hot enough topic (yet?). Well, I tried. best suggestion (which I am too tired to start a poll about): "If we invent net.books then perhaps people will start contributing non-sf reviews and discussions to it; I know I will." [sdchema!donn] CONCLUSIONS: Alas, despite the ~3/1 yes/no ratio, I must conclude that the time is NOT ripe, for two reasons. First, it appears that the discussion may be dying down. Second, the number of votes on doesn't seem (to me) to be quite sufficient. If something similar to what I proposed does become necessary (say, if the release of the next movie really creates a tidal wave of fandom), then we should drop the (merely historical) net.sf-lovers name, and create net.sf, net.sf.sw, and net.sf.startrek (moving net.startrek there). My thanks to all who took the time to respond. Liudvikas Bukys ...!rochester!bukys
jmturn (01/03/83)
This problem has cropped up in the past, and can best be refered to as the "George Lucas extra special custom deluxe 3 year itch and marching band". I expect we'll see a dying down until just before RotJ comes out, then a big boom, followed by the release and a bigger boom. This won't just go away... In fact, it's going to get worse. I'm going to talk to the current SFL moderator about putting the SW stuff in an evening digest, as was done right around the TESB release. This would allow the SW stuff to be redirected into net.sf.sw by virtue of it being preprocessed by the SFL moderator. Look on the bright side, however. Lucas claims RotJ leaves no loose ends... James Turner RG.JMTURN@MIT-OZ .../mitccc/jmturn