RFD: rec.aquaria reorganization
Dustin Laurence
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.marketplace
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.misc (renames rec.aquaria)
unmoderated group rec.aquaria.tech
Author: Dustin Laurence, laur...@alice.caltech.edu
Co-proponent: Wayne A. Powell, w...@inforamp.net
(Note: while Dustin is happy to answer e-mail about this RFD and will
do his best to do so in a timely fashion, other committments may limit
his e-mail activity during the discussion period. We suggest that
e-mail be directed to Wayne unless there is a specific reason to do
otherwise.)
Summary: (All groups to be unmoderated)
RENAME rec.aquaria -> rec.aquaria.misc
CREATE rec.aquaria.marketplace
CREATE rec.aquaria.tech
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.misc
CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.reefs
Each newsgroup in this RFD will be voted on separately and will
pass or fail independent of the other newsgroups.
PROCEDURE
After discussion and approval in the *.aquaria groups, this RFD will
be officially posted to news.groups, news.announce.newgroups,
rec.aquaria, alt.aquaria, sci.aquaria, alt.aquaria.killies, rec.ponds,
sci.bio.fisheries, bionet.organisms.zebrafish. In addition, copies
will be mailed to the managers of the following mailing lists for
reposting: AQUARIUM, BETTAS, CICHLIDS, DISCUS-L, GOLDFISH,
AQUATIC-PLANTS, and KILLIES. Subsequent discussion will be directed to
news.groups. After a discussion period of 21-30 days, if there are no
overwhelming objections to any of the proposed groups, there will be a
Call For Votes (CFV) posted to the same groups as this RFD. If
significant changes are necessitated by that discussion, the revised
RFD will be posted for another discussion period before the CFV is
distributed.
After the official posting of the CFV, the voting period will be at
least 22 days. The actual vote will be counted by a neutral votetaker.
Each group that passes, by receiving 100 more YES votes than NO votes
*and* twice as many YES votes as NO votes, will be created five days
after the end of the voting period unless the vote is deemed irregular.
Any group which fails a valid vote may not be voted on again for six
months.
BACKGROUND
The usenet aquarium newsgroups, rec.aquaria, alt.aquaria, and
sci.aquaria have maintained a steady, sizeable message volume since
their creation. They enjoy an enthusiastic and dedicated readership
whose long-term committment is evidenced by the amount and complexity
of material that has been made available. The existing (already
>200k) FAQ for rec.aquaria has just been expanded and rewritten, a
>150k FAQ for reef aquarists is maintained separately, an ftp site and
several web sites provide permanent reference material, and recently a
hard disk to provide a permanent home at Caltech for the archive and
the Krib web pages (which were losing their former site) was purchased
with donations from the net. For those interested, these documents
are available at:
WWW:
Pointers to various web pages, including the regular aquaria
faq and the archive:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~aquaria/
Ftp:
Regular FAQ:
ftp://ftp.cco.caltech.edu/pub/aquaria/FAQfiles/Usenet/
Reefkeeper's FAQ:
ftp://ftp.cco.caltech.edu/pub/aquaria/FAQfiles/Reefkeepers/
ftp://percula.acs.uci.edu/reefkeepers/faq/
Aquaria ftp archive:
ftp://ftp.cco.caltech.edu/pub/aquaria/
ftp://ftp.sun.ac.za/pub/misc/aquaria/FAQfiles/Usenet/
(South Africa mirror)
There are also many active mailing lists on various aquarium topics
(the addresses listed here are the contact addresses, not the list
addresses themselves):
The bitnet AQUARIUM mailing list (list...@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu)
241 subscribers, many messages per day.
The BETTAS list (list...@listserv.arizona.edu)
135 subscribers, a few messages per day.
The CICHLIDS list (mail-...@mailmill.com)
>200 subscribers, many messages a day.
Requested a specialty newsgroup.
The DISCUS-L list (list...@mitvma.mit.edu)
~150 subscribers, ~10 messages per day.
The GOLDFISH list (how...@col.hp.com)
~90 subscribers, ~7 messages per day.
Requested a specialty newsgroup.
The AQUATIC PLANTS list (majo...@actwin.com)
~200 subscribers, ~9 messages per day.
Requested a specialty newsgroup.
The KILLIES list (no information was provided)
The fact that several of these lists would prefer to move to a
newsgroup (often because the workload is too great for the list
managers) demonstrates that a reorganization of the aquarium
newsgroups is long overdue.
A reorganization was discussed at length in these newsgroups starting
in April of 1994; much of the discussion is archived at
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~aquaria/Archive/Net/reorg
or
ftp://ftp.cco.caltech.edu/pub/aquaria/incoming/reorg .
While the aquaria newsgroups have in the past been resistant to a
split on the grounds that it would inhibit cross-fertilization between
specialties, this discussion made it clear that the newsgroup volume
had become great enough to be problematic for a large majority of
readers.
Early on it was agreed that only rec.aquaria would be reorganized.
The redundancy in the current scheme with three groups should be
reduced rather than increased, and because rec.aquaria receives the
greatest volume (In March 95 it carried over 3000 messages) it should
remain the primary usenet aquarium newsgroup. However, because every
possible combination of these groups are received at various sites,
alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria should remain as they are rather than be
removed. Finally, this reorganization provides an appropriate
framework for the addition of more specific newsgroups at a later
date.
The results of Michael Sawyer's straw poll were posted on May 3. Out
of 62 votes, 60 were in favor of a reorganization. Similar majorities
supported the creation of two main rec.aquaria subgroups: .freshwater
and .marine . (The corresponding groups in this RFD appear with a
.misc suffix only because of the non-requirement requirement that this
be so.) The poll results, further discussion, and the judgement of
the author leads to the proposal for the creation of three additional
groups. It should be noted that the year delay in producing this RFD
is a result of the author's outside commitments, not a lack of
interest on the part of the long-suffering readers who have waited
patiently for its completion.
PROPOSAL:
GENERAL charter
The rec.aquaria.* hierarchy provides the primary USENET home for
discussion of all topics related to home aquaria. Discussion of other
closed aquatic and marine systems such as public aquaria, ponds,
aquaculture, and mariculture are also welcome, though these topics may
be better served by other newsgroups, such as rec.ponds; further
afield but still relevant are sci.bio.fisheries and
bionet.organisms.zebrafish (all of which are unrelated to and
unaffected by this RFD). However, the primary focus of the
rec.aquaria.* hierarchy is to support the private aquarist.
The divisions into topic specific subgroups is meant help the reader
find discussions on the topics that they are interested in, not to
inhibit them, so the charters of these newsgroups should not be
interpreted too narrowly.
Crossposting is discouraged unless absolutely necessary; if a post is
of potential interest to aquarists in both .marine and .freshwater
then it probably belongs in .misc instead of either. Sometimes
crossposting to two groups is fine, but otherwise posts should simply
go to .misc instead. However, crossposting is never appropriate
between .marketplace and the other groups.
(The following section is conditional on the passage of
rec.aquaria.marketplace; if that group fails, then the current
consensus-defined commercial posting policy will stay in effect and
apply to all groups on this RFD.)
Commercial postings
Advertisements and other commercial posts are a contentious issue on
the aquaria groups. Since the following may be unfriendly-sounding,
it should be emphasized that companies are invited and encouraged to
maintain a presence on the net, and if you avoid these pitfalls you
can expect a lot of appreciation for your efforts to be more
accessible through the net. For more useful information on
advertising on the net in general, see the Advertising on Usenet
posting in news.announce.newusers .
Non-advertisement posts from companies and their representatives
(including ongoing individual moneymaking ventures) require special
consideration as well as actual advertisements. Both are governed by
the Golden Rule of commercial posting in rec.aquaria.*:
The newsgroups exist for the benefit of their individual readers.
Companies and individual moneymaking ventures are _invited guests_
of the individual readers. As guests they receive special
consideration (rec.aquaria.marketplace), and are expected to take
special care not to interfere with the normal workings of what is
essentially a meeting place for private hobbyists. One corollary
of this rule is that readers should have a choice as to whether
they see (and often pay for the downloading of) ads, which is what
motivates much of the following.
Advertisements are restricted to rec.aquaria.marketplace, as provided
in that groups charter. Companies and their representatives are
encouraged to contribute to discussions in the other aquaria groups;
however, it should be understood that criticism of companies and
products is part of the purpose of those groups. If your company or
product is discussed, you are welcome to post your side of the story.
You should definitely not reply to every article or insist on having
the last word--a good rule is that you should post to the thread no
more often than other individual contributors.
E-mail advertising is never acceptable unless explicitly requested.
If a reader didn't specifically ask for your advertisement, don't send
it.
The above guidelines should eliminate most problems before they arise.
Companies that abide by the spirit, not the letter of the law and keep
the "guest" aspect in mind should find the rec.aquaria.* hierarchy a
friendly place to advertise their products and a uniquely valuable way
to obtain feedback and meet their customers. For more general
guidelines on what types of advertising are and are not acceptable on
usenet, see the Advertising FAQ in news.announce.newusers .
Unwelcome posts
Flames, while never on-topic, are particularly harmful when directed
at new readers. The aquaria groups were once one of the friendlier
places on the net for beginners. This is no longer true in many
people's minds because of the responses that are often aimed at
newbies (either to the net or to the hobby). Flames and other
non-constructive criticism aimed at those seeking help are unwelcome
and should be directed elsewhere (try alt.flame, /dev/null, or shout
at your monitor).
Binary files, even those related to aquaria, are generally not
appropriate (though _very small_ files may be ok). The correct
procedure is to make the file available by ftp, by WWW, or post the
file to an appropriate alt.binaries group (for pictures this would
probably be alt.binaries.pictures.animals or
alt.binaries.pictures.misc), and then post a short note in the aquaria
groups explaining where your binary post can be found and what its
subject line is.
Companies with hundreds of items to sell will have catalogs that
outgrow rec.aquaria.marketplace, and should instead maintain an ftp or
preferably web site and post its location (if done properly, this is
more convenient for your customers as well). Advertisements disguised
as advice ("your problem can be solved by our widget, as I've said to
everyone who has posted about this problem"), non-ad ads (.signature
files that advertise, for example, though short unobtrusive contact
information is OK), and ads for non-aquarium products are never
welcome; the net does not generally take kindly to this sort of
transparent subterfuge. Neither is e-mail advertising; interested
readers will read rec.aquaria.marketplace .
SPECIFIC NEWSGROUPS: (All distributions WORLD)
RENAME rec.aquaria to rec.aquaria.misc (Unmoderated)
Rationale: A general discussion group is needed, and to avoid heavy
political fire it must be named .misc .
Charter: Topics not covered by the other groups, and topics that are
appropriate to more than one group (rather than
crossposting). Not all topics fit neatly into the usual
freshwater/marine division (notably brackish aquaria), not
all topics have a large enough following to warrant a
separate newsgroup at this time, and some topics are of
broad interest to many types of aquarists. Also
appropriate are such things as pointers to more specific
newsgroups, ftp and web sites, and other "meta-issues."
If you don't know where to post it, it probably belongs
here.
The only things that do not belong here are those that
clearly fit well into one of the other groups; subjects
that are popular enough to warrant their own group should
not drown out smaller specialties in rec.aquaria.misc .
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Mandated by an overwhelming majority.
Charter: Topics specific to freshwater aquaria which do not fit
into one of the more specialized newsgroups, as well as
topics which fit into multiple specific freshwater
newsgroups.
CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.misc (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Mandated by an overwhelming majority.
Charter: Topics specific to marine aquaria which do not fit into
one of the more specialized newsgroups, as well as topics
which fit into multiple specific marine newsgroups.
CREATE rec.aquaria.marketplace (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Needed to avoid disputes over the appropriateness of
advertising, allow ads to be found easily without
burying or being buried in general discussion.
Charter: Ads related to aquaria and aquarium products and
inhabitants by private individuals and businesses.
Companies with hundreds of products must share the
newsgroup with hobbyists trying to unload their spare
tank, so care may be needed to avoid posting too often.
Posting once a month or so would nearly always be
unobjectionable; regularly posting every week would almost
certainly be too often. More important than numbers is
simple courtesy; if a post from somebody trying to sell
their living room tank is lost in a hail of commercial
ads, then the newsgroup cannot serve one of its primary
audiences. Similarly, huge catalog listings are
inappropriate. (Instead post pointers to ftp and web
sites with your on-line catalog; this works very well.)
Discussion of ads posted here should also take place here,
and posts should never be crossposted between
rec.aquaria.marketplace and another rec.aquaria.* group.
CREATE rec.aquaria.tech (Unmoderated)
Rationale: There are many topics which are common across the
freshwater/marine dichotomy, and this split is not meant
to interfere with the interaction of the two branches of
the hobby. Many of these topics relate to the technology
of aquarium keeping. While the organisms and special
techniques vary, both freshwater and marine aquaria face
a similar set of fundamental problems and often rely on
similar devices in their solution. This newsgroup also
allows those not interested in the gritty details to avoid
them.
Charter: Discussion about the technology of aquarium keeping,
including homebuilt gadgets as well as commercial devices.
Discussions of the technical details of such devices
belong here, though the rationale for their use may be just
as appropriate in another newsgroup.
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Cichlids are a large specialty within the freshwater
hobby, and have an active mailing list with over two
hundred subscribers. This mailing list has
specifically requested a dedicated newsgroup.
Charter: All topics related to both old- and new-world
cichlids.
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Goldfish are the stereotypical beginner aquarium fish,
but they also enjoy a dedicated following of skilled
aquarists and an active mailing list that has acquired
ninety members in about two months. This mailing list
has specifically asked for a dedicated newsgroup.
Charter: All topics related to goldfish and their kin.
CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants (Unmoderated)
Rationale: Planted tanks have an enthusiastic and voluble following
among freshwater aquarists (much like reefs have in the
marine branch). This group provides a home for planted
tank specialists and also allows the large number of non-
plant aquarists to avoid the many strictly plant posts
(a subject of some grumbling in the past). In
addition, there is a large, active plant mailing list
which has specifically requested a dedicated newsgroup.
Charter: All topics related to planted (freshwater) tanks.
CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.reefs (Unmoderated)
Rationale: The fundamental division of the marine hobby is into
reef and non-reef aquarists. This group provides a
home for reef specialists while allowing non-reef
aquarists to avoid the large number of reef related
posts. This newsgroup is the single most requested
specialty newsgroup in my private e-mail, and I fear
violence if it is not included! (Not really, but the
support is large and vocal--I would sooner worry that
there would be nothing left in
rec.aquaria.marine.misc .)
Charter: All topics related to marine reef aquaria.
Dustin Laurence, laur...@alice.caltech.edu
Wayne A. Powell, w...@inforamp.net
--
Lydick number: a paltry 3, but I'm working on it.
Philip Deitiker
I will be quite honest, and I know many people desire to subdivide the
catagories; however, I dont think there is enough activity in each of the
sections you have described to make anyone of them interesting. The
problem is that a message that I might be interested in may get tucked
away in a place that I might never go. Right now its convienient on
netscape to look at all the threads which have been modified in the last
24 hours, and it only takes a few minutes without any kind of hunt. As it
is we have people sending messages to rec. aquaria, sci.aquaria, and
alt.aquaria, and each of these sections have a great deal of overlap. You
might try the divide and conquer technique. First divide the sections
into marine and fresh water. I don't recommmend that you segregate an
equipment or plant catagory because you may get alot of post but very few
replies. The interest lies in the biology and in order to get people to
scan as many problems that they might be familiar with you need to keep
their interest. Later on you could subdivide into marine and reef
sections, and fresh water into general. Compuserve subdivided their
catagories about six months ago and there are some catagories where only
the hosts visit and very little informative information our discussions
go on. People genuinly resisted the change and continued to post all
their equipment, breeding, and other stuff in the major catagories.
I think you have to think very carefully how you subdivide and if I were
you I would procede very cautiously.
Philip
Davin Milun
» REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.marketplace
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.misc (renames rec.aquaria)
» unmoderated group rec.aquaria.tech
»
»Author: Dustin Laurence, laur...@alice.caltech.edu
»Co-proponent: Wayne A. Powell, w...@inforamp.net
»
»(Note: while Dustin is happy to answer e-mail about this RFD and will
»do his best to do so in a timely fashion, other committments may limit
»his e-mail activity during the discussion period. We suggest that
»e-mail be directed to Wayne unless there is a specific reason to do
»otherwise.)
»
»Summary: (All groups to be unmoderated)
»
» RENAME rec.aquaria -> rec.aquaria.misc
» CREATE rec.aquaria.marketplace
» CREATE rec.aquaria.tech
»
» CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
» CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
» CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
» CREATE rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
»
» CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.misc
» CREATE rec.aquaria.marine.reefs
Other than the fact the the *.marine.* groups are missing from the summary at
the top, I think that this looks great!
Davin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davin Milun Internet: mi...@cs.Buffalo.EDU
Fax: (716) 645-3464
WWW: http://www.cs.buffalo.edu/~milun/
Nicholas Plummer
<Pde...@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>Right now its convienient on
> netscape to look at all the threads which have been modified in the last
> 24 hours, and it only takes a few minutes without any kind of hunt.
Unfortunately, not everyone has that ability.
> I don't recommmend that you segregate an
> equipment or plant catagory because you may get alot of post but very few
> replies.
That does not seem to be the case with the plant postings that I have seen
on rec.aquaria. Plant and CO2 questions have spawned some quite long
threads by the standards of rec.aquaria. In addition, the RFD clearly
says that there is an active plants mailing list that has requested a
newsgroup
>Compuserve subdivided their
> catagories about six months ago and there are some catagories where only
> the hosts visit and very little informative information our discussions
> go on. People genuinly resisted the change and continued to post all
> their equipment, breeding, and other stuff in the major catagories.
> I think you have to think very carefully how you subdivide and if I were
> you I would procede very cautiously.
This isn't Compuserve, and the proponents of the RFD _have_ thought very
carefully and proceeded cautiously. The division question was discussed
at length on *.aquaria, and the vast majority of people who commented
supported the spit. When a draft RFD was posted a few weeks ago, the only
objections that I saw were arguments about whether rec.aquaria should be
renamed rec.aquaria.misc. Why would people refuse to utilize new groups
that they have actively campaigned to create?
Nick
Francis A Uy
I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
possibly by a renaming to r.a.tech
-F
.
Jeffery Schafer
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.marketplace
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.misc (renames rec.aquaria)
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.tech
This might be a trivial question, but what about brackish fish? Since
they are neither fresh nor marine, but often are found in both..
what would be a standard for this?
I am just wondering if it should go into the .misc category, or would
it be better to cross post to *.freshwater.misc and *.marine.misc??
-Jeff
Dustin Laurence
>I think you have to think very carefully how you subdivide and if I were
>you I would procede very cautiously.
This has been in the works for a year (due to my pace, not desire) and
most of the specialized groups were specifically requested by active
mailing lists. (Reefs is an exception, but the demand for that was
strong and insistent.)
Does that seem too incautious?
Dustin
--
For my sanity's sake: I read all my mail, but simply can't reply to it
all anymore. I try to help everyone I can, but I can't help you with
the FAQ contents, since I didn't write it, nor freshwater questions,
nor if you haven't read the relevant sections of the FAQ.
Dustin Laurence
>Other than the fact the the *.marine.* groups are missing from the summary at
>the top, I think that this looks great!
Sigh. Temporary screw up. It'll get fixed.
Liisa Sarakontu
Liisa Sarakontu
Dustin Laurence
> This might be a trivial question, but what about brackish fish? Since
>they are neither fresh nor marine, but often are found in both..
Not enough brackish messages to justify a group. Most of the brackish
fish that are kept are in pure FW or SW tanks and the owner does not
even know they are brackish (like mollies). Those people who are
aiming for a true brackish tank are few and far between (sadly).
> I am just wondering if it should go into the .misc category, or would
>it be better to cross post to *.freshwater.misc and *.marine.misc??
Crossposting is discouraged. Since a real brackish post does not fit
into either marine nor freshwater, it goes in rec.aquaria.misc, just
as listed in the charter. (Those posts not within the charter of a
more specific group go in the more general group, not spread over two
groups that do not fit.)
Andrew Hackard
> This might be a trivial question, but what about brackish fish? Since
>they are neither fresh nor marine, but often are found in both..
>
> what would be a standard for this?
>
> I am just wondering if it should go into the .misc category, or would
>it be better to cross post to *.freshwater.misc and *.marine.misc??
Brackish fish go into sci.aquaria, and therefore are not covered by a
split of rec.aquaria. Non-fish (e.g. hermit crabs, snails, and green leafy
things) go into alt.aquaria.
(or was it the other way around?)
--
Andrew Hackard | "Sir, you and all others who are looking for
hac...@fc.net | a technical fix to an ethical dilemma are
| doomed to disappointment." --WHMu...@aol.com,
Fight the CDA! | in article <3ruoc5$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Wayne A. Powell
> Wayne
>
> I will be quite honest, and I know many people desire to subdivide the
> catagories; however, I dont think there is enough activity in each of the
> sections you have described to make anyone of them interesting.
Some very good points. Quite a bit of thought and preparation went into
the reorg, we've been debating it and planning it for much longer than a
year now.
There was always a definite mandate to split regarding marine and
freshwater and quite a lot of support for the further categorizations.
Current traffic on the newsgroup mandates a reorganization. In my
particular interest, reefkeeping, there is definitely a mandated split of
marine to marine.reefs required, the current traffic bears it out.
Freshwater posters also expressed interest in further subdivision of their
interests.
Some of the proposed newsgroup splits have been, in part, spurred by a
desire to bring mailing lists out into a more public forum. Keep in mind
too, that many aquarists tend to specialize their tanks to particular
biotopes and species and while some cross posting may be done by newbies,
the provision of specific subgroups catering to these specialities will,
in the long run, better serve the purposes of aquarists wishing to
concentrate on a particular aspect of the hobby/science. (My thoughts on
this are not set in stone, I am only presenting an arguement for
meaningful discussion.)
One thing to remember is that each proposed newsgroup in the rec.aquaria
reorg RFD is to be voted on separately and will therefore pass or fail in
a CFV on its own merits and according to the demands of the voters.
Your concerns are worthy of discussion and consideration of all voters,
given the experience of CIS. However in our case, beyond it being
important that supporters remember that they will be voting on each
creation separately, there is also a component of serious posters who now
shy away from rec.aquaria because it is currently a mishmash of differing
disciplines, that can discourage serious discussion threads because some
people don't want to wade through all the posts (particularily when
subject lines are ambiguous) to get to their interests.
--==============================================================--
\|/ Wayne A. Powell AeroWood HyperMedia Publishing
wAp! <w...@inforamp.net> <http://www.inforamp.net/~wap>
/|\ ~~~ "Home of ZiP! The Zaurus Info Page" ~~~
Wayne A. Powell
(Davin Milun) wrote:
> Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> » REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.marketplace
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.misc (renames rec.aquaria)
> » unmoderated group rec.aquaria.tech
> »
> »Author: Dustin Laurence, laur...@alice.caltech.edu
> »Co-proponent: Wayne A. Powell, w...@inforamp.net
> »
>
> Other than the fact the the *.marine.* groups are missing from the summary at
> the top, I think that this looks great!
>
> Davin.
We're not entirely sure why the .marine.* groups were left off the top
(they were there when I saw the last revision), but this situation is
being rectified by group-advice and they are being put back in.
Thanks for noticing! ;-)
Dustin Laurence
Some sites ONLY receive sci.aquaria. I don't think we can remove
their only group. I view that to be a separate issue from the one
that this rfd addresses.
Colin Douthwaite
: Off the top of my head, not an awful proposal.
: I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
: possibly by a renaming to r.a.tech
Oh, you want to destroy someone else's newsgroup eh ? What would be
your reaction to someone who wanted to destroy or change newsgroups
you chose to subscribe to ?
This attitude is far too prevalent on the Net and causes a lot
of conflict and acrimony.
Bye,
Larry Smith USG
There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
--
Larry Smith --- My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/lar...@io.com.
Liberalism...[for] half a century...has been tested to destruction [and] failed
everywhere, overwhelmingly and manifestly - except in...the minds of its advoc-
ates. For them, liberalism is a religion... -- Paul Johnson, WSJ 4-Jan-94
Nicholas Plummer
> There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
> aquaria newsgroups.
On what basis do you conclude that there are enopugh aquarium newsgroups?
Why is _three_ too many? It seems likely that you are ignorant of the
content of the aquarium newsgroups and the reasons for wanting a reorg.
You would do better to abstain than vote no.
Nick
Larry Smith USG
What causes far _more_ conflict and acrimony is setting up a
hobby newsgroup in "sci" as a trojan horse to increase dis-
tribution. If there is to be a hierarchy for aquaria then
get _rid_ of the detritus. It's for your own sake as well
as namespace clarity, the continued existence of sci.aquaria
_splits_ virtually every new group. And namespace fiends like
myself will vote against all the new groups on that basis alone.
As for this "taking away newsgroups" that's just plain hogwash.
Anyone who doesn't get rec.* at work can get an account at some
net.accessable provider for a flat rate of less than $10 a month,
sometimes as little as five, and get _all_ of rec.* and every-
thing else, too, and get to it with telnet. Telnet to io.com
and login as "new".
You need to find a home. If it's rec, then _all_ aquaria groups
should be there. You don't get annexes with newsgroups. Nor do
I have the time or inclination to argue. If the CFV rmgroups
sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
I'll vote no down the line. See you at the CFV.
Wayne A. Powell
(Jeffery Schafer) wrote:
> This might be a trivial question, but what about brackish fish? Since
> they are neither fresh nor marine, but often are found in both..
>
> what would be a standard for this?
>
> I am just wondering if it should go into the .misc category, or would
> it be better to cross post to *.freshwater.misc and *.marine.misc??
There really isn't a standard for this as far as I can tell. A brackish
subdivision wasn't included because there was no really strong requests
for it (although the question was brought up early in the reorg
discussions). However, there is currently very little traffic on this
subject in the rec.aquaria newsgroup.
Wayne A. Powell
> Off the top of my head, not an awful proposal.
> I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
> possibly by a renaming to r.a.tech
This issue was debated fiercely in the early reorg discussions and it was
felt best by most to leave it as is because it carries its own weight in
numbers of postings (though quite a few are cross-postings) and some sites
still don't subscribe to the rec. heirarchy. Only time will tell whether
postings to sci.aquaria will fall off or become more specialized after the
reorganization of rec.aquaria.
Lewis Johnson
back by elimninating the cluter. In my area of personal intrest, it should
also help people to understand you can have a marine tank without it being a
reef system.
This re-organization should also help to focus the activity into
rec.aquaria.*, so maybe in the future I will not need to follow the other
two *.aquaria groups.
Aquarium keeping is a very specialized hobby any more. The newsgroups should
reflect this.
Steve Maurer
Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.cichlids
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.goldfish
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.marketplace
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.misc (renames rec.aquaria)
> unmoderated group rec.aquaria.tech
>
>Author: Dustin Laurence, laur...@alice.caltech.edu
>Co-proponent: Wayne A. Powell, w...@inforamp.net
I have a number of problems with the reorganization as proposed.
Specifically:
1] There are too many group subdivisions, which will result in
many of them not being separately viable (except as places
to place redundant crossposts).
2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
people to continue posting into ".misc".
3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
new aquarists) as to where to post.
I think that while well intended, this proposed subdivision suffers
from the easily made mistake of splitting by fish population, rather
than posting population.
Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria. ( In fact, it's
been several months since I've even *seen* a post with goldfish in
the title ). Furthermore, as goldfish are far more popular for beginners
than experts, posts having to do with them are often unrelated to
the type of fish kept, being more of the "is floating upside down a
bad sign?" type.
Group definition should also be based on the fact that while topics
may be disjoint, the people liable to post to and/or read them may not
be. If one cannot imagine someone being interested *ONLY* in this
topic, *AND NO OTHER*, it is not a reasonable newsgroup.
Finally, in my opinion, all newsgroup subdivisions which have
created a "MISC" subgroup, have never really succeeded. With this
catchall topic, it is far too easy for people to ignore the other
groups, directing posts to the miscellaneous group that really
belong in others. This create a vicious cycle of marginalization,
where people don't post to a subgroup because nobody reads it, and
nobody reads it because nobody posts to it.
Here is my suggestion for subdividing rec.aquaria:
rec.aquaria.help
Basic and intermediate questions and answers about fishkeeping.
Testimonial experiences. Renames rec.aquaria
Typical post: MY ANGELFISH ARE DYING!! WHY???
rec.aquaria.fresh
Posts about advanced freshwater tropical subjects, including
freshwater fish, plants, breeding, equipment, etc.
Typical post: How do I breed bettas?
rec.aquaria.cichlids
A subgroup dedicated specifically to them aggressive africans.
Typical post: Using scenery to aid territory establishment...
rec.aquaria.marine
Posts related to saltwater aquariums, fish, plants, breeding,
equipment, etc.
Typical post: FIGHTING THIS &@^#*$^@(#*&#^@&!! Bubble Algae PLAGUE
rec.aquaria.reef
A subgroup specifically dedicated to Reefkeeping topics, and
advanced experimental systems.
Typical post: Have a rule of thumb for calculating Jaubert plennum depth?
I believe these topics both reflect a better subdivision of the
frequent types of posts in rec.aquaria, and offer sufficiently
disjoint subjects topics, that the groups would not get a bad case
of "crosspost-itis". It also subdivides the group from one into
five, which should get the volume down considerably.
--
Steve Maurer #include <stdisclaimer.h>
MTS, OpenV*High Availability Development OpenVision Technologies, Inc.
(510) 426-3680 7133 Koll Center Parkway
Steve....@ov.com Pleasanton, CA 94566
David W. Webb
>
> You need to find a home. If it's rec, then _all_ aquaria groups
> should be there. You don't get annexes with newsgroups. Nor do
> I have the time or inclination to argue. If the CFV rmgroups
> sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
> I'll vote no down the line. See you at the CFV.
>
It's interesting to see that you would prefer to perpetuate the
extreme traffic jam that is currently rec.aquaria, even though the
flood of posts to this newsgroup is a major contributor to the current
use of sci.aquaria. I have posted to sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria
when my post was of a technical nature and I wanted it to be read. I
find that rec.aquaria is so busy that I miss posts and find them later
in one of the other newsgroups, mostly because there are soooo many posts
and I'm trying to pick and choose which one I want to read.
Your plans to vote down-the-line against the split if it doesn't eliminate
sci.aquaria will actually perpetuate and increase the use of sci.aquaria
if you succeed. I personally don't think as many people will cross-
post to sci.aquaria after the split and it may die back down to a trickle.
It is currently running at 25 or more messages per day and is well worth
my while to read. If the split of rec.aquaria does occur, I think alt
and sci.aquaria may not fare quite as well and may diminish enough to
where they aren't useful.
However, if the split doesn't go through, alt and sci.aquaria will only
get larger, as will rec.aquaria.
I personally think that voting against a newsgroup split because of
the presence of an overflow newsgroup which you want eliminated is a
bit backwards.
The split will:
free the rec.aquaria group to expand farther
make it less "friendly" to cross-post to alt and sci.aquaria
encourage people/companies to acquire access to rec.aquaria
Blocking the split will:
inhibit rec.aquaria's expansion, causing increased "bleed-over" into
alt and sci.aquaria
maintain the status quo on cross-posting
encourage people to use sci.aquaria.
I hope you think it over.
-------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
dw...@ti.com
Enterprise Computing Provisioning
Texas Instruments Inc.
Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas
Instruments is purely coincidental.
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
dw...@ti.com
Enterprise Computing Provisioning
Texas Instruments Inc.
Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas
Instruments is purely coincidental.
-------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
> Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
How many posts per day does it take for you to justify a new
newsgroup based on a common subject matter? 1000? I personally don't
want to wade through 150 messages per day to get to the ones that
are useful to me.
Adding a structure to rec.aquaria makes it possible to take some of
the "heat" off of alt and sci.aquaria.
Dustin Laurence
>Brackish fish go into sci.aquaria, and therefore are not covered by a
>split of rec.aquaria. Non-fish (e.g. hermit crabs, snails, and green leafy
>things) go into alt.aquaria.
Thanks loads. Now you all know how we're NOT splitting things....
Dustin Laurence
>There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
>aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
>Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
That isn't a realistic attitude unless you simply oppose any
reorganization of the aquaria groups. The propagation of all three
groups is such that simply removing any one would remove the only
available aquarium group for some people.
The RFD makes it clear that rec.aquaria is the prefered group, and
that is why it alone is being reorganized. If in the future
rec.aquaria has the propagation to truely replace the others, that
will be the time to consider removing them. This RFD is a start in
that direction, by making a clear preference.
Dustin Laurence
>What causes far _more_ conflict and acrimony is setting up a
>hobby newsgroup in "sci" as a trojan horse to increase dis-
>tribution.
OK, folks, the dredging up of old fights has started. First of all,
please keep in mind that the history of the *.aquaria groups is just
that. It isn't going to change. However, we don't have to prisoners
of that history, and instead can choose the best thing to do at this
time. The people you are angry with are not even involved with this
reorg.
>...If there is to be a hierarchy for aquaria then
>get _rid_ of the detritus.
As I said, that is outside of this RFD. It is unrealistic as well.
>And namespace fiends like
>myself will vote against all the new groups on that basis alone.
That is your right, but if that is so then your mind is already made
up and there is nothing more for us to say.
>...If the CFV rmgroups
>sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
>I'll vote no down the line.
Thanks for your ultimatum. I trust it is earning you many supporters.
I don't have one for you, though.
David W. Webb
>
> 1] There are too many group subdivisions, which will result in
> many of them not being separately viable (except as places
> to place redundant crossposts).
I disagree. The groups represented in the RFD are heavily represented
in rec.aquaria in my observation. The RFD discourages crossposting
as well.
> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
> people to continue posting into ".misc".
misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
> 3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
> new aquarists) as to where to post.
If we didn't have to use .misc, things would be easier, see response to
#2.
> Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
> from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria. ( In fact, it's
> been several months since I've even *seen* a post with goldfish in
> the title ).
I've actually seen multiple threads on goldfish. Much of the most recent
traffic has been siphoned off be the new mailing list.
> Finally, in my opinion, all newsgroup subdivisions which have
>created a "MISC" subgroup, have never really succeeded. With this
>catchall topic, it is far too easy for people to ignore the other
>groups, directing posts to the miscellaneous group that really
>belong in others. This create a vicious cycle of marginalization,
>where people don't post to a subgroup because nobody reads it, and
>nobody reads it because nobody posts to it.
I don't see myself using the .misc groups much at all. My areas of
interest are well defined in two of the specialty groups. I agree
that they will probably get a lot of traffic, but I don't agree that
the specialty groups won't work. There's just too much clearly defined
specialty traffic already.
> rec.aquaria.help
I think your observation on nobody reading this newsgroup
applies here. I wouldn't read it, and many of the "experts" wouldn't
either. A new aquarist goes to this newsgroup and posts a question.
Nobody responds, because nobody expects to find any useful information
here except for the FAQ.
>
> rec.aquaria.fresh
>
> Posts about advanced freshwater tropical subjects, including
> freshwater fish, plants, breeding, equipment, etc.
> Typical post: How do I breed bettas?
I personally am strongly in favor of a separate plant newsgroup.
Techniques for keeping plants differ from techniques for keeping fish-
only tanks. In some cases, a tank set up for plants won't keep fish-
only in a successful fashion. Conversely, a tank set up for fish only
can deprive plants of what they need. I don't want to have to wade
through hundreds of angelfish and tiger barb posts trying to find 10 or
15 plant posts.
>
>
> rec.aquaria.cichlids
It's there, it's just under the freshwater hierarchy.
> rec.aquaria.reef
>
It's there, it's just under the marine hierarchy.
>
> I believe these topics both reflect a better subdivision of the
> frequent types of posts in rec.aquaria, and offer sufficiently
> disjoint subjects topics, that the groups would not get a bad case
> of "crosspost-itis". It also subdivides the group from one into
> five, which should get the volume down considerably.
>
I really don't want to have to wade through all of the freshwater
posts just to find the relevant plant posts. You also left no room
for equipment discussions. rec.aquaria.tech is meant for this.
The stated subdivisions reflect more than a year of planning and
consensus within rec.aquaria. Your proposal to eliminate the freshwater
specialty groups would make it more difficult to find the information
you are looking for, or to make your information readable IMO.
You'll see me in rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants and in rec.aquaria.tech.
I probably won't spend much time elsewhere, just because these are my
specialty interests. I expect to find a lot of reef enthusiasts who
share my point, except they will substitute rec.aquaria.marine.reef
for the plants group.
Wilson Angerson
> You need to find a home. If it's rec, then _all_ aquaria groups
> should be there. You don't get annexes with newsgroups. Nor do
> I have the time or inclination to argue. If the CFV rmgroups
> sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
> I'll vote no down the line. See you at the CFV.
This is a discussion about the reorganization of rec.aquaria, not
sci.aquaria. If you want to abolish sci.aquaria then go and start a
discussion in that group and find out how much support you get from its
users. Don't be misled by the volume of crossposts into believing that
it doesn't have any users.
I agree with you that in an ideal world all the aquaria groups would
be under one hierarchy. This could conceivably happen sometime in the
future if a better structure for rec.aquaria is put in place. But it
isn't going to happen immediately, and it isn't going to happen at all
unless there is a usable group structure for the traffic to migrate to.
If you are seriously interested in tidying up namespace as opposed to
indulging in mindless obstructionism then you should support this
proposal.
Wilson
David Brockman Wheeler
> I have a number of problems with the reorganization as proposed.
>Specifically:
>
> 1] There are too many group subdivisions
There are exactly the number of groups that were either specifically requested
or required for posting the RFD.
> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
> most common discussion topics
Which topics are not adequately split? The groups you propose below
are all represented in the current RFD...so what's the problem?
> I think that while well intended, this proposed subdivision suffers
>from the easily made mistake of splitting by fish population, rather
>than posting population.
>
> Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
> from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria.
That is because the bulk of goldfish discussion occurs on the goldfish
mailing list...the members of which overwhelmingly supported the creation
of a glodfish newsgroup.
> Group definition should also be based on the fact that while topics
>may be disjoint, the people liable to post to and/or read them may not
>be. If one cannot imagine someone being interested *ONLY* in this
>topic, *AND NO OTHER*, it is not a reasonable newsgroup.
Maybe I'm dense, but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever...maybe you
could reword it? I think that by your logic, since I can imagine a person
interested only in lactate dehydrogenase isoforms in rainbow trout, then
rec.aquaria.freshwater.coldwater.salmonids.rainbows.cell_biology.enzymes.
ldh.structure would be a reasonable group.
> Finally, in my opinion, all newsgroup subdivisions which have
>created a "MISC" subgroup, have never really succeeded. With this
>catchall topic, it is far too easy for people to ignore the other
>groups, directing posts to the miscellaneous group that really
>belong in others. This create a vicious cycle of marginalization,
>where people don't post to a subgroup because nobody reads it, and
>nobody reads it because nobody posts to it.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here...but the moderator requests
that *.misc groups be present...vote 'em down if you don't like 'em...but
make sure that some catch-all group remains because there are legitimate
reasons to post to higher order groups, and a goal is to reduce the need
for cross-posting.
> Here is my suggestion for subdividing rec.aquaria:
>
> rec.aquaria.help
How many old-timers do you think will read this group? This was
discussed at length some time ago and it was generally agreed that a
group with this name would be all questions and few answers.
> rec.aquaria.fresh
The fact that you don't think aquatic plants merit a seperate newsgroup
clearly indicates that you haven't been following *.aquaria long or
carefully...this is another example of the special interest folks retiring
from usenet to a list, and have as a whole requested a seperate newsgroup.
Most of these points are mentioned in the RFD...didn't you read it?
> rec.aquaria.cichlids
>
> A subgroup dedicated specifically to them aggressive africans.
> Typical post: Using scenery to aid territory establishment...
Your lack of knowledge re aquaria is showing and so, by extension, is your
lack of qualification to suggest alternative reorg strategies. You wouldn't
seriously suggest that *.cichlids exclude South American spp or non-aggressive
spp would you?
> rec.aquaria.marine
[snip]
> rec.aquaria.reef
[snip]
> I believe these topics both reflect a better subdivision of the
>frequent types of posts in rec.aquaria, and offer sufficiently
>disjoint subjects topics, that the groups would not get a bad case
>of "crosspost-itis". It also subdivides the group from one into
>five, which should get the volume down considerably.
I believe you should take a few hours and review the archived discussion that
preceded the construction of this RFD...and you may want to review the RFD
itself.
David Wheeler
dwhe...@leland.Stanford.EDU
Ken Arromdee
>misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
>but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
Does this count as seven?
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Romana: "But he had such an honest face!"
Doctor: "Romana! You can't be a successful thief with a _dis_honest face!"
Wayne A. Powell
Hackard) wrote:
> Jeffery Schafer <jsch...@holly.ColoState.EDU> wrote:
>
> > This might be a trivial question, but what about brackish fish? Since
> >they are neither fresh nor marine, but often are found in both..
> Brackish fish go into sci.aquaria, and therefore are not covered by a
> split of rec.aquaria. Non-fish (e.g. hermit crabs, snails, and green leafy
> things) go into alt.aquaria.
>
> (or was it the other way around?)
Although I assume that this post is either a joke or a misinformed opinion
(sorry to waste bandwidth on a response) ....
Brackish fish discussion would be welcomed currently in either or both of
rec.aquaria or alt.aquaria. A post to sci.aquaria would generally be
discouraged unless it was of a scientific nature or indepth discussion
presumably meant for those studying some aspect of this biotope or in
promoting an advanced theory that would benefit hobbyists or aquarists
keeping such specimens. There is really no difference in the mandate of
rec.aquaria or alt.aquaria but their creations were spawned for differing
reasons. Fish and "non-fish" discussions are encouraged in both
newsgroups.
Wayne A. Powell
> There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
> aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
> Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
This aspect was discussed early in the creation of the RFD, it is not the
mandate of the rec.aquaria mandate to deal with either alt.aquaria (which
would be nearly impossible to remove since it is not governed by the
system presently used to vote on the primary newsgroup heirarchies) or
sci.aquaria which is available on some systems where rec.aquaria is not
(some systems do not subscribe to the rec. hierarchy at all).
Wayne A. Powell
> I have a number of problems with the reorganization as proposed.
> Specifically:
>
> 1] There are too many group subdivisions, which will result in
> many of them not being separately viable (except as places
> to place redundant crossposts).
>
> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
> people to continue posting into ".misc".
>
> 3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
> new aquarists) as to where to post.
>
>
> Finally, in my opinion, all newsgroup subdivisions which have
> created a "MISC" subgroup, have never really succeeded.
Fortunately or unfortunately the proponents of this RFD received "advice"
from group-advice pointing to the creation of .misc groups for what would
have been the tops of each major subdivision of the current heirarcy
(rec.aquaria.freshwater & rec.aquaria.marine, which have been replaced by
*.misc)
> Here is my suggestion for subdividing rec.aquaria:
>
>
> rec.aquaria.help
This is possible but also likely to attract cross-postings and
mis-postings since the majority of all posts to the rec.aquaria hierachy
are of the "help" variety and subsequent responses and discussion. I
don't see how this .help newsgroup would be any more useful that keeping
rec.aquaria as is or using rec.aquaria.misc, rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
and rec.aquaria.marine.misc.
> rec.aquaria.fresh
You have stated that you wish to see names such that new users are
adequately guided. This example contradicts that assertion. What is a
"fresh" aquaria. Yes I understand what you mean and possibly most would,
but .freshwater.* is only a few more letters and a much clearer
definition.
> rec.aquaria.cichlids
It was considered possible to place all subdivisions on one level of the
heirachy but some questions came up that made it more in keeping with
current newsgroup naming conventions to produce further depths that
adequately guide users into the branch of subdivisions they are
exploring. Thus, .aquaria.freshwater.cichlids. However your point is
well taken since it is also redundant, in this case, since cichlids are
definitely freshwater fish. One area of concern was in the creation, for
example of a *.plants subdivision. There is currently a growing number of
posts related to the creation of plant tanks and if we proposed
rec.aquaria.plants, would those interested in posting about marine algaes
become confused. The proposed system alleviates that confusion.
>
> rec.aquaria.marine
>
> rec.aquaria.reef
Both of these subdivision are mandated by the current number of posts to
rec.aquaria (it is possible that you received a mistaken post of the RFD
that contained an error that left out these subdivisions). However, in
keeping with the proposed naming heirarchy and the crossover of equipment
and general care and maintenance issues, rec.aquaria.marine.misc and
rec.aquaria.marine.reef were proposed.
(Note: originally, rec.aquaria.marine and rec.aquaria.freshwater were
proposed as their own sub-level of the heirarchy but group-advice
suggested changing them to *.misc before posting the RFD to news.groups
based on a strongly worded suggestion that this convention was more
appropriate and more likely to succeed at the CFV stage.)
Wayne A. Powell
> In article <3sldum$d...@southern.co.nz>, Colin_Do...@equinox.gen.nz
(Colin Douthwaite) writes:
> >Francis A Uy (fu...@umbc.edu) wrote:
> >: Off the top of my head, not an awful proposal.
> >: I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
> >: possibly by a renaming to r.a.tech
> >
> >Oh, you want to destroy someone else's newsgroup eh ? What would be
> >your reaction to someone who wanted to destroy or change newsgroups
> >you chose to subscribe to ?
> >
> >This attitude is far too prevalent on the Net and causes a lot
> >of conflict and acrimony.
>
> What causes far _more_ conflict and acrimony is setting up a
> hobby newsgroup in "sci" as a trojan horse to increase dis-
> tribution. If there is to be a hierarchy for aquaria then
> get _rid_ of the detritus. It's for your own sake as well
> as namespace clarity, the continued existence of sci.aquaria
> _splits_ virtually every new group. And namespace fiends like
> myself will vote against all the new groups on that basis alone.
>
The issue of removing sci.aquaria should be considered an issue beyond and
separate fromthe reorganization of the rec.aquaria heirachy. It is
possible that the creation of subdivisions of the rec.aquaria newsgroup
will create credibility that might encourage serious discussion of topics
of a scientific nature that may reduce traffic in sci.aquaria and
ultimatley (but not likely) result in its dismantle. However, the
proponents and others involved in this RFD as well as the general
population of rec.aquaria were not mandated by consensus to include
sci.aquaria in this RFD. Onyl issues mandated by a majority consensus
were included and that is how it was proposed.
We can continue to discuss the relevancy of sci.aquaria on its own and
separate issue, however, please do not confuse the current reorganization
by including it as essential to this RFD. That is a mistake and not part
of the mandate of this RFD. Splitting our support of the RFD and
subsequent CFV on the rec.aquaria reorg will just once again put the whole
reorganization into limbo and result in a lot of work down the drain. A
lot (more than a year) of discussion and arguement has gone into what has
been proposed, do not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. Otherwise we will be back at square one with another year or
two wait to see this through.
> If the CFV rmgroups
> sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
> I'll vote no down the line. See you at the CFV.
Respectfully, I suggest that if the issue of sci.aquaria is that important
to you, then propose a separate RFD calling for its removal.
Cindy Tittle Moore
>> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
>> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
>> people to continue posting into ".misc".
>misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
>but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
examples and no real reason to have to use a misc. I've regretted
moving RPD to RPDM many times, since I found out later that it wasn't
actually required. If it improves your proposal not to do this, then
by all means scrap the misc! You'll be glad later that you did.
--Cindy
--
_________________________Cindy Tittle Moore___________________________________
Internet: tit...@netcom.com USmail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
WWW: http://www.io.com/user/tittle/
Thomas Steven Wright
>hobby newsgroup in "sci" as a trojan horse to increase dis-
>tribution.
I find it difficult to consider sci.aquaria a "hobby" newsgroup. Granted,
hobbyists post there, but many breeders, technicians, etc. post discussions
and questions there as well.
A hobbyist isn't going to get into the technical specifications on the
chemical make up of good water, or the breeding specifics that come along
with mixing generations of fish, or the proper wattage output and the
electrical effects on an aquarium involved in using a specific piece of
equipment, or the appropriate light spectrums necessary for raising a
specific hard or soft coral.
That is not hobbyist discussion. These examples come from biologists,
university researchers, animal/fish/invertebrate/coral/plant breeders, etc.
--
==============================================================================
Thomas S. Wright tswr...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu
Milwaukee, WI Phi Sig -- Damn Proud!
==============================================================================
Thomas Steven Wright
Might I point out that is does a lot of harm to the input of the *.Aquaria
readers to NOT cross-post to the groups. Please make certain they are
included in the Newsgroups: line in your followups. These are the people
that use the groups. The people in news.groups can debate all they want
about the tech specs of newsgroup structure, but the *.aquaria people need
to be involved when it comes to discussing the use of the groups.
Keith Rogers
>As for this "taking away newsgroups" that's just plain hogwash.
>Anyone who doesn't get rec.* at work can get an account at some
>net.accessable provider for a flat rate of less than $10 a month,
>sometimes as little as five, and get _all_ of rec.* and every-
>thing else, too, and get to it with telnet. Telnet to io.com
>and login as "new".
You're neither well informed nor well travelled if you think rates are
that cheap everywhere and telnet access universal.
>You need to find a home. If it's rec, then _all_ aquaria groups
>should be there. You don't get annexes with newsgroups. Nor do
>I have the time or inclination to argue. If the CFV rmgroups
>sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
>I'll vote no down the line.
So vote no and buzz off. We're not scraping a year's worth of work to
appease you.
Veteran of the first reorg (and voted no to sci),
--
Keith Rogers
kro...@xmission.com
Una Smith
> some sites still don't subscribe to the rec. heirarchy.
By itself, this is not a valid reason for retaining sci.aquaria,
for two reasons: (1) sci.* is also not carried by all sites, and
(2) rec.* and sci.* are carried by roughly the same fraction of
sites.
Una Smith
within rec.aquaria.*. At no time in the past in the "Big 8"
has a hierarchy been created at the same time as a newsgroup
of the same name, hence this combination (for example) would
be contrary to all precedent:
rec.aquaria.freshwater
rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants
There is thus a de facto requirement that newsgroups not be
created if they would duplicate the names of hierarchies.
But there is no *requirement* that the first group in this
example be named rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc.
David Brockman Wheeler
Una Smith <una....@yale.edu> wrote:
>w...@inforamp.net (Wayne A. Powell) wrote:
>
>> some sites still don't subscribe to the rec. heirarchy.
>
>By itself, this is not a valid reason for retaining sci.aquaria,
What does this have to do with how or whether rec.aquaria should be
reorganized? Seems to me th existence of a sci group is not relevant
to this discussion.
David Wheeler
Andrew Hackard
>Colin_Do...@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
> >Francis A Uy (fu...@umbc.edu) wrote:
> >: Off the top of my head, not an awful proposal.
> >: I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
> >: possibly by a renaming to r.a.tech
> >
> >Oh, you want to destroy someone else's newsgroup eh ? What would be
> >your reaction to someone who wanted to destroy or change newsgroups
> >you chose to subscribe to ?
Get a bleepin' clue. The whole *.aquaria lowerarchy was created in a
disputed vote with all sorts of bull-byproducts being flung about by
nearly everyone involved. We can't do anything about alt.aquaria, but
sci.aquaria is grossly misplaced and should either be renamed or removed.
It never should have been created in the first place.
> >This attitude is far too prevalent on the Net and causes a lot
> >of conflict and acrimony.
What is far *more* prevalent is a rash of people speaking ex cathedra
when they haven't a cathedra to stand on. First Law Of Usenet: Thou
shalt not post what thou knowest nothing about. (alt.sex.first-time
excepted. ;-) )
>What causes far _more_ conflict and acrimony is setting up a
>hobby newsgroup in "sci" as a trojan horse to increase dis-
>tribution.
Thanks, Larry.
--
Andrew Hackard | "Sir, you and all others who are looking for
hac...@fc.net | a technical fix to an ethical dilemma are
| doomed to disappointment." --WHMu...@aol.com,
Fight the CDA! | in article <3ruoc5$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Andrew Hackard
>lar...@enemax.zk3.dec.com (Larry Smith USG) writes:
>>There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
>>aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
>>Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
>That isn't a realistic attitude unless you simply oppose any
>reorganization of the aquaria groups. The propagation of all three
>groups is such that simply removing any one would remove the only
>available aquarium group for some people.
Straw man. By that argument, we should put *every* proposed group in
*every* hierarchy (aol.sex.bondage?) so that *no one* can miss anything.
You're advocating a Great Unnaming.
I agree with Larry that the *.aquaria folks oughta pick *one* hierarchy
and tough it out there. (I also think it should be rec, though I know the
odds on a rmgroup of alt.aquaria succeeding.) I don't agree that he has
sufficient reason to vote against the split by that alone. However, arguing
that aquaria people need groups in three different hierarchies because
otherwise "someone might miss out!" is a bogus argument.
David Seal
>st...@henry.ov.com (Steve Maurer) wrote:
>> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
>> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
>> people to continue posting into ".misc".
>
>misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
>but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
If you mean that .misc was used rather than just leaving rec.aquaria
itself as the "everything that's left over" group, what little
evidence I've seen suggests that people are even more likely to
continue posting into an un-renamed group than into a group renamed to
.misc. (This evidence is mainly from the two comp.sys.acorn.*
reorganisations: the .misc renmaing failed in the first and passed in
the second, resulting in us having seen both options.) So assuming
that the objective is to reduce the traffic in the "everything that's
left over" group, a .misc renaming will probably help.
If you mean that the .misc group was put in the proposal rather than
not having an "everything that's left over" group at all, I'd have
thought that having such a group is a sensible idea: even if no
current traffic falls outside the categories you've found, you need
somewhere for new types of traffic to go.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
Dustin Laurence
> 1] There are too many group subdivisions, which will result in
> many of them not being separately viable (except as places
> to place redundant crossposts).
Hmm. Most of the specialty groups were specifically requested by a
demonstrated constituency (active mailing lists, except for the reef
group which was demanded by a cadre of guerillas who would probably
have broken my kneecaps if they didn't get their group. Since reefs
are consistently one of the highest volume topics, it won't lack for
posters and will make a lot of other people happy by getting those
!@#$% reef people away from their own threads.
> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
> people to continue posting into ".misc".
Actually, this is only true to the extent that many mailing lists have
been started by those who were sick and tired of the group the way it
was and could not wait for the split to go through. The specialty
groups merely acknowledge the divisions already in place. The
situation is closer to the opposite--these divisions only acknowledge
those which already exist. Lots of people have quit reading the net
because they only want posts on one of these topics and they were
forced to mailing lists to get the divisions.
As for misc groups, two of them are only there because we have to have
them to appease groups-advice.
> 3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
> new aquarists) as to where to post.
I don't agree, but I don't think I understand what you mean. Can you
explain what the problem you see is?
> I think that while well intended, this proposed subdivision suffers
>from the easily made mistake of splitting by fish population, rather
>than posting population.
Again, that is only true to the extent that people have gotten tired
of waiting around for this and have formed their own divisions.
> Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
>from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria.
That group exists because there is an active mailing list on the topic
which specifically requested it. It has nothing to do with the
popularity of the fish, nor did I intend to put it on the RFD until
they asked for it.
>...( In fact, it's
>been several months since I've even *seen* a post with goldfish in
>the title ).
That is because there is a robot which greps through the newsgroups
for any post that appears to be goldfish related and e-mails the
poster about the mailing list. They have gone to automation so they
don't even have to read the group to let people know they exist. What
could be a clearer sign of a needed group.
>...Furthermore, as goldfish are far more popular for beginners
>than experts, posts having to do with them are often unrelated to
>the type of fish kept, being more of the "is floating upside down a
>bad sign?" type.
No, that is one reason they want a group of their own--because that is
what most people think. Goldfish fanciers who are not beginners tend
to be very dedicated experts who specialize in goldfish, like the
moderator of the goldfish mailing list. All the experts are there
because rec.aquaria is too noisy.
> Group definition should also be based on the fact that while topics
>may be disjoint, the people liable to post to and/or read them may not
>be. If one cannot imagine someone being interested *ONLY* in this
>topic, *AND NO OTHER*, it is not a reasonable newsgroup.
I don't agree on that subject, but again the specialty groups were
created basically because that is what people are doing with the
mailing lists. And there is plenty of precedent for creating
low-volume groups that are expected to share readers with other
groups, such as .marketplace and .tech .
> Finally, in my opinion, all newsgroup subdivisions which have
>created a "MISC" subgroup, have never really succeeded.
Again, that is not our choice. Go discuss it with groups-advice . I
put it there because I don't have time to involve this RFD with that
war.
> Here is my suggestion for subdividing rec.aquaria:
> rec.aquaria.help
This was discussed at length in the archived discussion. I suggest
you at least examine why it was rejected. Basically, reef beginner
questions have nothing to do with fw beginner questions and so on, and
nobody was really willing to read the help group anyway. Newbies to
the groups also tend to be newbies to the net anyway, and they are not
likely to find the appropriate group to post to just because we make
them one. By the time they do get it right, they won't be posting to
the .help group.
> rec.aquaria.fresh
> Posts about advanced freshwater tropical subjects, including
> freshwater fish, plants, breeding, equipment, etc.
> Typical post: How do I breed bettas?
That makes no sense. The advanced fw people have already left and
split into their separate specialties. If we try to put them back
together, the won't even bother. Why should they?
> rec.aquaria.cichlids
> A subgroup dedicated specifically to them aggressive africans.
> Typical post: Using scenery to aid territory establishment...
Already proposed, under the freshwater hierarchy.
> rec.aquaria.marine
> Posts related to saltwater aquariums, fish, plants, breeding,
> equipment, etc.
> Typical post: FIGHTING THIS &@^#*$^@(#*&#^@&!! Bubble Algae PLAGUE
Already there, but we were forced to change it to r.a.m.misc .
Otherwise, identical.
> rec.aquaria.reef
> A subgroup specifically dedicated to Reefkeeping topics, and
> advanced experimental systems.
> Typical post: Have a rule of thumb for calculating Jaubert
plennum depth?
Already proposed, under .marine .
I guess I'd need a lot more evidence that this proposal is better than
the current one.
Dustin Laurence
>Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
>examples and no real reason to have to use a misc.
Believe me, I need no convincing that the .misc groups are silly.
However, I need to get this reorg finished. It would require a show
of support from the readers of *.aquaria to convince me that we need
to go to the wall on this one and annoy group-advice. I really don't
like it, but am not at all sure that we should fight it.
Colin Douthwaite
: "David W. Webb" <dw...@ti.com> writes:
: >> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
: >> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
: >> people to continue posting into ".misc".
: >misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
: >but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
> Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
> examples and no real reason to have to use a misc.
> I've regretted moving RPD to RPDM many times, since I found out
> later that it wasn't actually required.
Why ?
Re-org fans usually say that renaming the parent newsgroup to misc
( as a catchall for leftovers ) is essential for the success of the
re-org.
Group-Advice would very very strongly request the adoption of the
"non-required requirement" of the *.misc renaming if a reorganisation
is involved. They do so even when a single group is being added,
don't you read all the new RFDs ?
> If it improves your proposal not to do this, then by all means
> scrap the misc! You'll be glad later that you did.
If you manage to get away with it in the revised RFD !
Bye,
Dustin Laurence
>Get a bleepin' clue. The whole *.aquaria lowerarchy was created in a
>disputed vote with all sorts of bull-byproducts being flung about by
>nearly everyone involved. We can't do anything about alt.aquaria, but
>sci.aquaria is grossly misplaced and should either be renamed or removed.
>It never should have been created in the first place.
This is EXACTLY why nothing involving alt or sci.aquaria is on the
RFD. It is just fanning the flames of a war that some people can't
forget. I have no interest in anything but making rec.aquaria useable
by its readers. If you wish to change sci.aquaria, write the RFD.
But that is a can of worms that I'm not going to open.
If you want to say it was opened by the mere existence of this RFD,
that may be true. However, I do not wish to see this RFD involved any
further than that. By posting so violently, you are demonstrating
that emotions still run too high to risk a needed reorg of rec.aquaria
by touching sci or anything else.
Colin Douthwaite
: >but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
> Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
Dustin Laurence
>Straw man. By that argument, we should put *every* proposed group in
>*every* hierarchy (aol.sex.bondage?) so that *no one* can miss anything.
>You're advocating a Great Unnaming.
That is a straw man, but yours not mine. I never suggested creating a
group for that reason, nor would I.
>...However, arguing
>that aquaria people need groups in three different hierarchies because
>otherwise "someone might miss out!" is a bogus argument.
I argued that an existing group, however well or poorly conceived,
that has a clear constituency should not be removed. If I were
arguing what you suggest, then I would advocate an identical split for
sci.aquaria because they undoubtedly need those groups too. I have no
intention of doing that, because I agree that one hierarchy is the
best, and rec is defacto the preferred one. However, I will not
attempt to remove an existing group with a constituency. Creating new
strangeness is different from recognizing that that which exists has
been adapted to and utilized.
Finally, this is an RFD for the reorganization of REC.aquaria, just as
it said in the subject line. It is a separate issue from the fate of
sci or alt, and I am not attempting to reorg sci.aquaria or
alt.aquaria. Part of the reason is because feelings run so strongly
on the subject--I want to accomplish something needed and possible,
not try for something possibly better but clearly much more volatile.
Jay Maynard
Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>If you want to say it was opened by the mere existence of this RFD,
>that may be true. However, I do not wish to see this RFD involved any
>further than that. By posting so violently, you are demonstrating
>that emotions still run too high to risk a needed reorg of rec.aquaria
>by touching sci or anything else.
Sorry. You should have realized that this RFD would open that can of worms,
and anticipated it.
You can list me among those who will vote NO down the line if the
sci.aquaria trojan horse isn't addressed, and YES if it is.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"...for nothing is worse than squandering this most precious gift of our
creator. (Spielberg eats this stuff up.)" -- Yakko Warner
Jeffery Schafer
>
>
>There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
>aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
>Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
just a guess here, but you don't read any of them do you?
Rec.aquaria can have over 100 posts over a given weekend. In the past
when I was not able to read the *.aquaria groups, I could not catch up.
-Jeff
Thomas M. Sasala
: Might I point out that is does a lot of harm to the input of the *.Aquaria
: readers to NOT cross-post to the groups. Please make certain they are
: included in the Newsgroups: line in your followups. These are the people
: that use the groups. The people in news.groups can debate all they want
: about the tech specs of newsgroup structure, but the *.aquaria people need
: to be involved when it comes to discussing the use of the groups.
: --
Then they should be reading news.groups, like many of us are. I
would suspec that half of the *.aquaria reader don't even know about the
RFD or the reorg. Silly boys and girls ;)
: ==============================================================================
: Thomas S. Wright tswr...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu
: Milwaukee, WI Phi Sig -- Damn Proud!
: ==============================================================================
--
In our civilization, and under our republican form of government,
intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption
from the cares of office.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
David Seal
>Might I point out that is does a lot of harm to the input of the *.Aquaria
>readers to NOT cross-post to the groups. Please make certain they are
>included in the Newsgroups: line in your followups. These are the people
>that use the groups. The people in news.groups can debate all they want
>about the tech specs of newsgroup structure, but the *.aquaria people need
>to be involved when it comes to discussing the use of the groups.
Then please come and join in the discussion in news.groups for as long
as this reorganisation takes, as the RFD invited you to. It's not very
hard, especially if you take care to always put "aquaria" into the
subject line. (Then you can filter out all the other discussion in
news.groups by auto-selection, or simply by looking at the subject
line.)
Why should you do this? Firstly, because it gets all the discussion
together in one group. This stops the discussion fragmenting because
e.g. someone's newsreader by default only posts their reply to the
first group in the Newsgroups: list, or only to the group that they
are actually reading it in. Secondly, it means that the proponent's
life is made easier by only having to look for discussion of the
reorganisation in one group, not four. Thirdly, it means that people
who decide that they want to use their limited reading time reading
about aquaria rather than about the split can do so easily. Fourthly,
it means that you won't find yourselves on the crossposting list of
discussions e.g. about .misc renamings for months after your
particular reorganisation has been dealt with, Finally, news.groups
*is* the place to discuss group creations by Usenet convention. Even
if you think this convention is silly, do you really want to add
complications to this reorganisation by defying it?
I'm cross-posting this to all the groups for this time only, because I
wish to emphasise the invitation in the RFD to come and discuss it
here. But followups are directed to news.groups, beacsue I don't want
to be responsible for assisting news.groups traffic to overflow into
other groups.
David Seal
ds...@armltd.co.uk
Jan Isley
Thomas Steven Wright <tswr...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>Might I point out that is does a lot of harm to the input of the *.Aquaria
>readers to NOT cross-post to the groups. Please make certain they are
You may, but you would be wrong. It certainly does not HARM readers.
It is the purpose of news.groups to discuss newsgroup proposals. It
is the purpose of rec.aquaria to discuss aquaria. The proposal to
reorganize rec.aquaria is not aquaria. This is a disctinction with a
difference. I submit that trying to keep this discussion in the aquaria
groups does harm to those groups. If the traffic is sufficient that
readers are demanding a reorganization, then you certainly do not need
news.groups traffic there.
>included in the Newsgroups: line in your followups. These are the people
>that use the groups. The people in news.groups can debate all they want
>about the tech specs of newsgroup structure, but the *.aquaria people need
>to be involved when it comes to discussing the use of the groups.
Then *they* need to read news.groups. This is the way things are done
in usenet. I believe that you have been around long enough to know that.
--
Jan Isley <j...@bagend.atl.ga.us>
If you couldn't find any weirdness, maybe we'll just have to make some!
-- Hobbes
Thomas M. Sasala
: lar...@enemax.zk3.dec.com (Larry Smith USG) wrote:
: >
: > should be there. You don't get annexes with newsgroups. Nor do
: > I have the time or inclination to argue. If the CFV rmgroups
: > sci.aquaria, I'll vote yes down the line. If it doesn't, then
: >
: It's interesting to see that you would prefer to perpetuate the
: extreme traffic jam that is currently rec.aquaria, even though the
: flood of posts to this newsgroup is a major contributor to the current
: use of sci.aquaria. I have posted to sci.aquaria and not rec.aquaria
: when my post was of a technical nature and I wanted it to be read. I
: find that rec.aquaria is so busy that I miss posts and find them later
: in one of the other newsgroups, mostly because there are soooo many posts
: and I'm trying to pick and choose which one I want to read.
: I hope you think it over.
Some how I don't think he reads the group(s) or cares about
those who do. We'll just have to see him at the CFV.
: -------------------------------------------------------------
: David W. Webb
: dw...@ti.com
: Enterprise Computing Provisioning
: Texas Instruments Inc.
: Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas
: Instruments is purely coincidental.
: -------------------------------------------------------------
: -------------------------------------------------------------
: David W. Webb
: dw...@ti.com
: Enterprise Computing Provisioning
: Texas Instruments Inc.
: Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas
: Instruments is purely coincidental.
: -------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Angerson
> tit...@netcom.com (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>
> >Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
> >examples and no real reason to have to use a misc.
>
> Believe me, I need no convincing that the .misc groups are silly.
> However, I need to get this reorg finished. It would require a show
> of support from the readers of *.aquaria to convince me that we need
> to go to the wall on this one and annoy group-advice. I really don't
> like it, but am not at all sure that we should fight it.
I too was initially annoyed by the 4th level .misc groups, but after
taking a few deep breaths I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't
try to make an issue of this.
The precedents that have been mentioned are relevant to the question of
whether an existing group should be renamed when it becomes the top of a
hierarchy. If we wanted to retain rec.aquaria as a group for
miscellaneous discussions instead of renaming it r.a.misc then yes,
there are precedents. However, the renaming of r.a doesn't seem to be
particularly contentious. It was in the draft RFD, it was justified by
the proposers during discussion, and there was no great outcry.
Anyone that doesn't like it can vote against it, and if r.a.misc fails
then r.a will remain. Not what I would prefer, but no big deal.
The proposed groups r.a.f.misc and r.a.m.misc are a slightly different
kettle of fish. The parent groups don't already exist, and I assume Una
is correct when she says that there are no precedents for creating them
as both group names and hierarchy names. It is obvious to the most
casual lurker in news.groups that group-advice are implacably opposed to
setting such a precedent. Opposing these group names simply by voting
against them would be disastrous, because the FW/SW split would be
largely undermined.
The rationale for group-advice's policy (which is discussed interminably
in news.groups) occasionally leaks out. It doesn't strike me as
particularly compelling (as group-advice seem to think), but nor is it
totally insubstantial (as some others seem to think). The arguments it
gives rise to are entertaining to the disinterested observer, but not
something I'd want a reorg I care about to get bogged down in.
The group names simply don't matter that much - they are usable as they
stand. The way the groups work out has more to do with how we choose to
use them than with what they are called. Rather than start a long
argument with an uncertain outcome for the sake of minor improvements,
I'd prefer to see this move to a CFV as soon as possible.
Wilson
Jeffery Schafer
>Dustin Laurence (laur...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>: tit...@netcom.com (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>:
>: >Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
>: >examples and no real reason to have to use a misc.
>:
>: Believe me, I need no convincing that the .misc groups are silly.
>: However, I need to get this reorg finished. It would require a show
>: of support from the readers of *.aquaria to convince me that we need
>: to go to the wall on this one and annoy group-advice. I really don't
>: like it, but am not at all sure that we should fight it.
>: Dustin
>
>
>So the ends justify the means ?
>
>As proponent after proponent of RFDs continues to take the soft
>option to get their RFD accepted and issued, they perpetuate this
>unsatisfactory situation where Group-Advice persist in heavy
>pressure tactics on the *.misc renaming policy whilst, at the same
>time, publicly delaring that they do not require compliance.
>
>Every proponent who fails to resist the renaming when they disagree
>with it increases the pressure for everyone else.
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that one person should have full say
in what happens in the restructuring of *.aquaria?
I think what Dustin was trying to say is that the majority wanted it.
Am I wrong?
-Jeff
Jeffery Schafer
>David W. Webb <dw...@ti.com>:
>>st...@henry.ov.com (Steve Maurer) wrote:
>>>
> May I point out something I consider rather obvious?
>
> Very few posters to the new newsgroups will likely have read the RFD,
>and even if you put "please don't crosspost" into the group FAQ, it's
>unlikely this will cut down the number of crossposts, because IMHO the
>newsgroups as suggested are sliced way too thin.
Perhaps I am missing something. Could you give an example?
I mean, do you think that people are going to be so confused that they
are going to cross post freshwater fish into marine?
Or that I am going to discuss my Fahaka puffer on the plant section
because I don't know the difference between a plant and a fish?
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but I really don't understand your logic.
Perhaps if you could offer some examples of possible cross-posts...
>>> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
>>> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
>>> people to continue posting into ".misc".
>>
>> misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
>> but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
>
>
> A law that is "unwritten" is no law at all.
>
> We have rec.humor.oracle, and rec.humor.funny.
>
> So where the heck is rec.humor.misc ?
I don't really know what the difference between an oracle and a funny is.
However, there will be aquarium topics that could go into .misc
I don't see how you could have a humor related (Joke?) that doesn't fit
in a topic.
IMHO you are comparing apples to oranges.
> I guess somebody better tell that newbie Brad Templeton he created
>a newsgroup without properly following the "unwritten law" that forced
>him to rename rec.humor. ( :-\ for the sarcasm impaired )
Once again, to me humor and funny seem like oxymorons, but I don't read
the news groups--so its none of my buisness.
>>> 3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
>>> new aquarists) as to where to post.
>>
>> If we didn't have to use .misc, things would be easier, see response to
>> #2.
>
> See my response to your response (above).
Ditto
> I stand by my assertion that *NO* group subdivision resulting in
>a "misc" subgroup has *EVER* worked to significantly divide newsgroup
>traffic. The appelation "miscellaneous" is just too broad.
>
>
>>> Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
>>> from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria. ( In fact, it's
>>> been several months since I've even *seen* a post with goldfish in
>>> the title ).
>>
>> I've actually seen multiple threads on goldfish. Much of the most recent
>> traffic has been siphoned off be the new mailing list.
>
> I'll have to take your word for it. I haven't seen any. I
>certainly believe that if a mailing list is capable of handling
>the traffic, it doesn't require its own newsgroup.
I don't think it handles the traffic at all. I was on the mailing
list, but had to be taken off. It just filled my mail box to much.
Example: If I went on vacation, my account could be filled if I am on
a mailing list. If it is a newsgroup, then I don't have to worry.
I for one would very much like to have it as a newsgroup so I can read
it when I have time, and not deal with deciding if I want to delete each
message as it comes.
Try joining the goldfish mailer if you think that it is a good idea.
>> I don't see myself using the .misc groups much at all. My areas of
>> interest are well defined in two of the specialty groups. I agree
>> that they will probably get a lot of traffic, but I don't agree that
>> the specialty groups won't work. There's just too much clearly defined
>> specialty traffic already.
>
> If you mean reef systems, I agree. That's why I put a group
>specifically for reefs in my suggested heirarchy. Ditto for chichlids.
>
>
>>> rec.aquaria.help
>>
>> I think your observation on nobody reading this newsgroup
>> applies here. I wouldn't read it, and many of the "experts" wouldn't
>> either. A new aquarist goes to this newsgroup and posts a question.
>> Nobody responds, because nobody expects to find any useful information
>> here except for the FAQ.
>
> Believe it or not, there are people who actually *enjoy* helping
>others. Also, while is is informative and extremely appreciated, the
>FAQ doesn't answer *every* question.
If a person needs help on a freshwater fish, then should he not post it
in the freshwater section?
I think that rec.aquaria.help would create TONS of cross posting. The
whole point of having aquarium news groups is to get help.
> Maybe this group would be better titled as: rec.aquaria.wizards
Why?
>
>
>>> rec.aquaria.fresh
>>>
>>> Posts about advanced freshwater tropical subjects, including
>>> freshwater fish, plants, breeding, equipment, etc.
>>> Typical post: How do I breed bettas?
>>
>> I personally am strongly in favor of a separate plant newsgroup.
>> Techniques for keeping plants differ from techniques for keeping fish-
>> only tanks. In some cases, a tank set up for plants won't keep fish-
>> only in a successful fashion. Conversely, a tank set up for fish only
>> can deprive plants of what they need. I don't want to have to wade
>> through hundreds of angelfish and tiger barb posts trying to find 10 or
>> 15 plant posts.
>
> Hopefully, most of the angelfish/tigerbarb posts would be diverted to
>the "help" or "wizards" newsgroup, whatever you want to call it, leaving
>those who can't be bothered with answering questions with a low enough
>traffic to endure.
IMHO they would be cross posted. I know that I would.
>
>>> rec.aquaria.cichlids
>>
>> It's there, it's just under the freshwater hierarchy.
>
> I'm well aware of it. But even according to your own words, since
>you dislike "misc" newsgroups, why create two or more of them? After
>all, do we *REALLY* need all these?
>
> rec.aquaria.misc
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> rec.aquaria.marine.misc
>
> I say no. If you try this, all you'll get is massive crossposts.
>Now *you* may find this acceptable, because you don't intend to read
>any of the misc groups, but others who'd like advanced freshwater
>and saltwater groups probably won't.
>
Then vote no.
However, if someone has something that doesn't fit into one newsgroup,
then should they just crosspost to all of them?
>>> I believe these topics both reflect a better subdivision of the
>>> frequent types of posts in rec.aquaria, and offer sufficiently
>>> disjoint subjects topics, that the groups would not get a bad case
>>> of "crosspost-itis". It also subdivides the group from one into
>>> five, which should get the volume down considerably.
>>>
>>
>> I really don't want to have to wade through all of the freshwater
>> posts just to find the relevant plant posts. You also left no room
>> for equipment discussions. rec.aquaria.tech is meant for this.
>
> Again I ask: how many people would be interested in reading
>rec.aquaria.tech exclusively, especially since the type of equipment
>people are interested in depends on the environment they have?
>Skimmers are really only a saltwater/reef subject, and UGFs are really
>only a freshwater one.
That last statement can be debated, but I don't feel that's the point
of this discussion.
Example: Have you not noticed the numerous people asking if skimmers
can be used on freshwater? One person even said that there is a company
that makes freshwater skimmers.
Also, there are many people IMHO that would be interested in the
technical nature of the hobby. I know I am.
>> You'll see me in rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants and in rec.aquaria.tech.
>> I probably won't spend much time elsewhere, just because these are my
>> specialty interests. I expect to find a lot of reef enthusiasts who
>> share my point, except they will substitute rec.aquaria.marine.reef
>> for the plants group.
I have to say that I am glad to see that you are at least interested in
aquariums.
I really don't understand why people are going to vote no straight down
the line--when they don't even read rec.aquaria..
Thomas Steven Wright
> as this reorganisation takes, as the RFD invited you to.
I'm already there. I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't.
> It's not very
> hard, especially if you take care to always put "aquaria" into the
> subject line. (Then you can filter out all the other discussion in
> news.groups by auto-selection, or simply by looking at the subject
> line.)
Well, I use VN (Visual News) and it doesn't sort that way (at least that I
know of), but that's my own problem. I can't even filter out cross posts.
Very depressing...
> Secondly, it means that the proponent's
> life is made easier by only having to look for discussion of the
> reorganisation in one group, not four.
This is true, my point is when the discussion wavers towards the content of
the *.aquaria groups, or the validity of one or the other, or something
other than the structural integrity of usenet, the *.aquaria groups should
be included, as the content is their concern and should not be the concern
of folks that don't read the groups with any regularity.
> Fourthly,
> it means that you won't find yourselves on the crossposting list of
> discussions e.g. about .misc renamings for months after your
> particular reorganisation has been dealt with.
This is perhaps the best argument of all ;)
> Finally, news.groups
> *is* the place to discuss group creations by Usenet convention. Even
> if you think this convention is silly, do you really want to add
> complications to this reorganisation by defying it?
Point taken. I hold that the pertinent groups need to be included when the
discussion wanders off to group content or whatever. Someone suggested that
sci.aquaria should be done away with. I think sci.aquaria should be
included in that discussion.
--
Ted Poe
Although there may be misgivings regarding the proposed groups, this is a
serious attempt to bring order to an overloaded newsgroup. Dustin and Wayne
present an initial structure which is workable (and expandable) and IMO I
feel the shortcomings are less than the benefit of the reorganization.
Remember, each group in the RFD will be voted on individually, and if one
(or more) don't have the users' support, then the votes will determine it.
I would rather not see another year go by before we could yet again
attempt to address this issue. Bring on the CFV.
Ted Poe
po...@world.std.com
Colin Douthwaite
: tit...@netcom.com (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
:
: >Why? It isn't actually required. There are dozens of counter
: >examples and no real reason to have to use a misc.
:
: Believe me, I need no convincing that the .misc groups are silly.
: However, I need to get this reorg finished. It would require a show
: of support from the readers of *.aquaria to convince me that we need
: to go to the wall on this one and annoy group-advice. I really don't
: like it, but am not at all sure that we should fight it.
:
: Dustin
So the ends justify the means ?
As proponent after proponent of RFDs continues to take the soft
option to get their RFD accepted and issued, they perpetuate this
unsatisfactory situation where Group-Advice persist in heavy
pressure tactics on the *.misc renaming policy whilst, at the same
time, publicly delaring that they do not require compliance.
Every proponent who fails to resist the renaming when they disagree
with it increases the pressure for everyone else.
Sorry, it is not possible to opt out and say that Group-Advice would
not accept the RFD without it. That's what is causing this ongoing
problem which ends up in guerilla warfare.
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
David W. Webb
>
> >As I said earlier, by voting down the line against the reorg, you vote
> >to increase activity in sci.aquaria, making it more difficult for you,
> >me, or anyone else to rmgroup it in the future.
>
> Nope...but what it will do is put more pressure on folks to do the Right
> Thing and remove the grossly misnamed trojan horse the next time.
Since this RFD is over rec.aquaria, I guess we'll just have to put up
with your decision to try and keep rec.aquaria in an overcrowded,
unfriendly state. Maybe you should try reading it sometime. It's
really interesting. Sci.aquaria contains lots of technical discussions
on lighting, chemical reactions, etc. but it's really not part of this
discussion.
Jay Maynard
Dustin Laurence <laur...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>If your mind is made up, then there is no point in discussing it, is
>there? You are free to vote any way you wish, but if you wish to have
>the RFD modified then you might try some rational debate instead of
>threats.
Why? You've already shown that you do not intend to consider correcting the
aberration that is sci.aquaria. Given that, I see nothing to discuss. That
article was not a threat, but a statement of fact, and one that you would do
well to heed - but I see no flexibility on your part.
David W. Webb
>
> The group names simply don't matter that much - they are usable as they
> stand. The way the groups work out has more to do with how we choose to
> use them than with what they are called. Rather than start a long
> argument with an uncertain outcome for the sake of minor improvements,
> I'd prefer to see this move to a CFV as soon as possible.
>
I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement.
Dustin Laurence
>I would rather not see another year go by before we could yet again
>attempt to address this issue. Bring on the CFV.
Six months, technically.
Ken Arromdee
Jay Maynard <jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>Why? You've already shown that you do not intend to consider correcting the
>aberration that is sci.aquaria. Given that, I see nothing to discuss.
If I ever propose news.groups.misc, I intend also to not correct sci.aquaria
in that proposal. Will that color your vote on news.groups.misc?
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Romana: "But he had such an honest face!"
Doctor: "Romana! You can't be a successful thief with a _dis_honest face!"
David W. Webb
>
> You can list me among those who will vote NO down the line if the
> sci.aquaria trojan horse isn't addressed, and YES if it is.
> --
As I said earlier, by voting down the line against the reorg, you vote
to increase activity in sci.aquaria, making it more difficult for you,
me, or anyone else to rmgroup it in the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Maynard
>jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) wrote:
>> You can list me among those who will vote NO down the line if the
>> sci.aquaria trojan horse isn't addressed, and YES if it is.
>to increase activity in sci.aquaria, making it more difficult for you,
>me, or anyone else to rmgroup it in the future.
Nope...but what it will do is put more pressure on folks to do the Right
Thing and remove the grossly misnamed trojan horse the next time.
Dustin Laurence
>Sorry. You should have realized that this RFD would open that can of worms,
>and anticipated it.
I was very well aware of what would happen, thank you. So far it is
milder than I had anticipated, which is fine with me.
>You can list me among those who will vote NO down the line if the
>sci.aquaria trojan horse isn't addressed, and YES if it is.
If your mind is made up, then there is no point in discussing it, is
there? You are free to vote any way you wish, but if you wish to have
the RFD modified then you might try some rational debate instead of
threats.
Dustin
Dustin Laurence
>I too was initially annoyed by the 4th level .misc groups, but after
>taking a few deep breaths I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't
>try to make an issue of this.
I will not make an issue of it. The .misc groups stay unless a really
overwhelming show of opposition appears from aquaria readers. Just
because I don't dissemble about what I think of the policy doesn't
mean that I'm not going to follow it.
This is absolutely not the RFD to fight that battle with, for many
reasons. The RFD will follow tradition unless it becomes clear that
enough aquaria readers dislike it enough to risk strong opposition.
This reorg is most badly needed by those who don't care about net
politics, so I don't see that happening.
Essentially, I am just agreeing with you, but I thought I'd better
make my position clear so that people didn't think I was inviting
excuses to modify the RFD.
David W. Webb
>
> So the ends justify the means ?
>
> As proponent after proponent of RFDs continues to take the soft
> option to get their RFD accepted and issued, they perpetuate this
> unsatisfactory situation where Group-Advice persist in heavy
> pressure tactics on the *.misc renaming policy whilst, at the same
> time, publicly delaring that they do not require compliance.
>
> Every proponent who fails to resist the renaming when they disagree
> with it increases the pressure for everyone else.
Taking a stand on the *.misc groups is viewed as a way to perpetuate,
or increase the number of admins that _hate_ the aquarists on the
usenet. The aquarium groups were created in a great deal of
controversy. As you've seen by reading this thread, a few people
want to hold anyone who uses the aquarium groups responsible for some
negative things that happened years before most of us were on the net.
Why fight yet another battle, particularty one that doesn't really
need to be fought?
The volume of traffic on rec.aquaria necessitates a split. The best
time for that split is yesterday if not sooner. A great deal of
discussion went into this RFD, and the .misc group names weren't an
issue that the group felt was worth fighting over.
I'm taking the "soft" option because I really don't mind the .misc
names as much as I mind the lack of a split.
Chris Hamilton
>Francis A Uy (fu...@umbc.edu) wrote:
>: I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
>
>I'm not all that sure how the RFD and CFV voting process works, but could we
>put in the removal of sci.aquaria as a separate issue on the voting
>ballet? That way, if sufficient interest exists for keeping sci.aquaria it
>will stay, but if it doesn't we can get rid of the group.
<snip>
>Darren Smith d...@cnd.hp.com 229-2536 Network and Systems Mangt. Div, HP
>--
I was going to keep my mouth shut until the CFV but....
As a user of rec.aquaria and sci.aquaria, I strongly feel that there are two separate issuse
at work here. I know not the history of the sci.aquaria battles, but understand that there is
some underlying tension about the sci.aquaria creation. In fact, as one who has followed the
group for a relatively short time (by net standards), it seems a little silly to be dragging
up old skeletons about the past creation of a newsgroup, but memories are long around here.
The point to those of us who use the groups is that rec.aquaria has to be reorganized. The
volume is such that one can't keep up with the posts, and most of us have our own interests
within the hobby. I for one find the entire group intersting, but have let most of the
freshwater stuff go. (or I'll have to let my job go). I like the proposed split, and also the
flexibility it gives us for the future.
I also think that the split has a good chance of making sci.aquaria more useful to those of us
who use it appropriately; like the recent lighting discussions, chemistry discussions by Craig
Bingham and others, discussions of the mechanisms of antibiotic actions, etc., etc.
Let the RFD stand as it is! Dustin and Wayne (and others) have done an excellent job with the
reorg of REC.AQUARIA, the topic that is up for discussion.
My 2 cents worth
Chris Hamilton
UTMB Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Galveston, Tx
Jay Maynard
Ken Arromdee <arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>If I ever propose news.groups.misc, I intend also to not correct sci.aquaria
>in that proposal. Will that color your vote on news.groups.misc?
Oh, good grief.
news.groups has nothing to do with aquaria. sci.aquaria does, especially
since it was created in sci solely to bypass propagation restrictions on rec
groups.
Next time, try to be less silly in your arguments.
Darren Smith
: I'd be happier if it destroyed sci.aquaria,
I'm not all that sure how the RFD and CFV voting process works, but could we
put in the removal of sci.aquaria as a separate issue on the voting
ballet? That way, if sufficient interest exists for keeping sci.aquaria it
will stay, but if it doesn't we can get rid of the group. Yes, it might mean
that some group of people no longer get the aquaria groups, but there are
also benefits to other groups of people (like less cross-posting). Why
not put it up for vote as a separate issue?
--
Steve Maurer
>> many of them not being separately viable (except as places
>> to place redundant crossposts).
>
> I disagree. The groups represented in the RFD are heavily represented
> in rec.aquaria in my observation. The RFD discourages crossposting
> as well.
May I point out something I consider rather obvious?
Very few posters to the new newsgroups will likely have read the RFD,
and even if you put "please don't crosspost" into the group FAQ, it's
unlikely this will cut down the number of crossposts, because IMHO the
newsgroups as suggested are sliced way too thin.
Certainly the groups represented in the RFD have representation,
but that's not the question. You can argue just about anything having
representation on rec.aquaria, even a razor thin heirarchy like this:
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.mollies
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.plecos
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.angelfish
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.gourmais
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.gourmais.dwarf
rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.tigerbarbs
....
rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants.java-moss
....
...etc
..since there are posts including these fish all the time in rec.aquaria.
However, having interest in a topic in a news group is only
NECCESSARY to make a subgroup out of it. It is *NOT* SUFFICIENT.
To create a viable sub-group, you must also be able to answer
the following question in the affirmative:
Are there a significant number of people who would
likely follow this topic *exclusively* ?
If not, all you have done is pollute the namespace, because
everybody (or nobody) is reading this group.
>> 2] Those divisions which are made, do not adequately split the
>> most common discussion topics - which will merely encourage
>> people to continue posting into ".misc".
>
> misc is used because an unwritten law requires it. We didn't want it,
> but caved in to outside pressure to add it anyways.
A law that is "unwritten" is no law at all.
We have rec.humor.oracle, and rec.humor.funny.
So where the heck is rec.humor.misc ?
I guess somebody better tell that newbie Brad Templeton he created
a newsgroup without properly following the "unwritten law" that forced
him to rename rec.humor. ( :-\ for the sarcasm impaired )
>> 3] The newsgroup names do not adaquately guide new users (or
>> new aquarists) as to where to post.
>
> If we didn't have to use .misc, things would be easier, see response to
> #2.
See my response to your response (above).
I stand by my assertion that *NO* group subdivision resulting in
a "misc" subgroup has *EVER* worked to significantly divide newsgroup
traffic. The appelation "miscellaneous" is just too broad.
>> Goldfish for example, may be the most popular fish, but it is far
>> from being the most popular topic on rec.aquaria. ( In fact, it's
>> been several months since I've even *seen* a post with goldfish in
>> the title ).
>
> I've actually seen multiple threads on goldfish. Much of the most recent
> traffic has been siphoned off be the new mailing list.
I'll have to take your word for it. I haven't seen any. I
certainly believe that if a mailing list is capable of handling
the traffic, it doesn't require its own newsgroup.
> I don't see myself using the .misc groups much at all. My areas of
> interest are well defined in two of the specialty groups. I agree
> that they will probably get a lot of traffic, but I don't agree that
> the specialty groups won't work. There's just too much clearly defined
> specialty traffic already.
If you mean reef systems, I agree. That's why I put a group
specifically for reefs in my suggested heirarchy. Ditto for chichlids.
>> rec.aquaria.help
>
> I think your observation on nobody reading this newsgroup
> applies here. I wouldn't read it, and many of the "experts" wouldn't
> either. A new aquarist goes to this newsgroup and posts a question.
> Nobody responds, because nobody expects to find any useful information
> here except for the FAQ.
Believe it or not, there are people who actually *enjoy* helping
others. Also, while is is informative and extremely appreciated, the
FAQ doesn't answer *every* question.
Maybe this group would be better titled as: rec.aquaria.wizards
>> rec.aquaria.fresh
>>
>> Posts about advanced freshwater tropical subjects, including
>> freshwater fish, plants, breeding, equipment, etc.
>> Typical post: How do I breed bettas?
>
> I personally am strongly in favor of a separate plant newsgroup.
> Techniques for keeping plants differ from techniques for keeping fish-
> only tanks. In some cases, a tank set up for plants won't keep fish-
> only in a successful fashion. Conversely, a tank set up for fish only
> can deprive plants of what they need. I don't want to have to wade
> through hundreds of angelfish and tiger barb posts trying to find 10 or
> 15 plant posts.
Hopefully, most of the angelfish/tigerbarb posts would be diverted to
the "help" or "wizards" newsgroup, whatever you want to call it, leaving
those who can't be bothered with answering questions with a low enough
traffic to endure.
>> rec.aquaria.cichlids
>
> It's there, it's just under the freshwater hierarchy.
I'm well aware of it. But even according to your own words, since
you dislike "misc" newsgroups, why create two or more of them? After
all, do we *REALLY* need all these?
rec.aquaria.misc
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
rec.aquaria.marine.misc
I say no. If you try this, all you'll get is massive crossposts.
Now *you* may find this acceptable, because you don't intend to read
any of the misc groups, but others who'd like advanced freshwater
and saltwater groups probably won't.
>
>> rec.aquaria.reef
>>
> It's there, it's just under the marine hierarchy.
Again, ditto my above commentary.
>> I believe these topics both reflect a better subdivision of the
>> frequent types of posts in rec.aquaria, and offer sufficiently
>> disjoint subjects topics, that the groups would not get a bad case
>> of "crosspost-itis". It also subdivides the group from one into
>> five, which should get the volume down considerably.
>>
>
> I really don't want to have to wade through all of the freshwater
> posts just to find the relevant plant posts. You also left no room
> for equipment discussions. rec.aquaria.tech is meant for this.
Again I ask: how many people would be interested in reading
rec.aquaria.tech exclusively, especially since the type of equipment
people are interested in depends on the environment they have?
Skimmers are really only a saltwater/reef subject, and UGFs are really
only a freshwater one.
> The stated subdivisions reflect more than a year of planning and
> consensus within rec.aquaria. Your proposal to eliminate the freshwater
> specialty groups would make it more difficult to find the information
> you are looking for, or to make your information readable IMO.
Excuse me, David, but the *RFD* is intended to *develop* consensus.
And given the number of responses to the RFD, I would hardly agree
with your assertion that such a consensus has already been established.
Again, if you divide freshwater into such groups, you are going
to get lots of crossposts. I can just see it now: "Help I added a plant
and now my swordtail has white spots!!!" Posted to: rec.aquaria.misc,
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc, rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, alt.aquaria,
and sci.aquaria. Just what we all need.
> You'll see me in rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants and in rec.aquaria.tech.
> I probably won't spend much time elsewhere, just because these are my
> specialty interests. I expect to find a lot of reef enthusiasts who
> share my point, except they will substitute rec.aquaria.marine.reef
> for the plants group.
With the suggested subdivision, I'm sure I'd see you elsewhere.
It gets awfully lonely in a newsgroup all by yourself. Especially
when most of the articles have been crossposted from "misc".
--
Steve Maurer #include <stdisclaimer.h>
MTS, OpenV*High Availability Development OpenVision Technologies, Inc.
(510) 426-3680 7133 Koll Center Parkway
Steve....@ov.com Pleasanton, CA 94566
Colin Douthwaite
: Thomas Steven Wright (tswr...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
:
: : Might I point out that is does a lot of harm to the input of the *.Aquaria
: : readers to NOT cross-post to the groups. Please make certain they are
: : that use the groups. The people in news.groups can debate all they want
: : about the tech specs of newsgroup structure, but the *.aquaria people need
: : to be involved when it comes to discussing the use of the groups.
: Then they should be reading news.groups, like many of us are. I
: would suspec that half of the *.aquaria reader don't even know about the
: RFD or the reorg. Silly boys and girls ;)
It is estimated that a mere 1.6% of Usenet readers read news.groups so the
vast majority are silly people by your definition. You are one of a tiny
elite. Get real.
Bye,
David W. Webb
>
> Why? You've already shown that you do not intend to consider correcting the
> article was not a threat, but a statement of fact, and one that you would do
> well to heed - but I see no flexibility on your part.
You've shown over and over again now that you don't follow any of the
aquarium newsgroups.
For the record, sci.aquaria contains a significantly higher percentage
of technical topics, proofs, calculations, equations, discussions of
thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, diseases, technical explanations,
breeding techniques, chemistry, photosynthesis, antibiotics, and
the like than the other two groups. It has matured in this direction
over the years. Yes, a percentage of the posts are cross-posts across
the groups, and another percentage are posts from people who don't
have access to the other groups. An expert aquarist usually becomes
an expert as a result of acquiring significant knowledge in many of
these fields. Sci.aquaria, isn't just *hobby* newsgroup any more than
the other science/hobby newsgroups that I've seen out there.
The RFD deals with rec.aquaria only. Sci.aquaria can be addressed.
This RFD doesn't address sci.aquaria.
I don't know how limited the namespace is on sci.*, and I don't know
how much sci.aquaria affects the namespace. Your posts show that
you're really upset about the existance of the group. Your posts don't
give any explanation as to why other than that you view the creation
of sci.aquaria as an act of deception. I don't know what the
intentions were when it was created. I understand that sci and rec.aquaria
were on the same RFD and that rec.aquaria was added to try and steal
votes from sci. I also understand that sci passed anyways. I don't
understand how the results of this are injurious to you. Perhaps if
you could tell us why you want sci.aquaria eliminated, then we could
write an RFD for it. I guarantee that it will cause a great deal of
discussion, and the people who only have access to the sci hierarchy
will oppose it. Sci.aquaria is currently a busy newsgroup, getting from
25-50 messages per day. I think that you will need to show very good
reasons for your wish to dismantle it.
In the last 6 months, the message traffic on sci.aquaria has gone from
10-20 messages per day to 25-50 messages per day. If you succeed in
blocking the rec.aquaria reorganization, this number will continue
to increase.
The addition of AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy has meant an ever increasing
flow of messages into all three of the aquaria newsgroups. Smaller
network providers are also adding users at an ever increasing rate.
If we don't succeed in reorganizing rec.aquaria, the six months wait
period could see the message traffic in *.aquaria double across the board
again. Do you really want that?
You've called sci.aquaria an "abberation" and a "trojan horse" would
you care to explain the terms that you use based upon the current use
of the newsgroup? You've also stated that you find us inflexible.
We need this RFD to go to CFV and we don't want to change it. We've
offered you the opportunity to write an RFD to remove sci.aquaria.
You've ignored that offer so far.
If I understand correctly, news.groups is the place to discuss whether
the elements of an RFD have merit or not. Sci.aquaria is not included
in the rec.aquaria reorganization RFD. You've pledged to vote against
all elements of the rec.aquaria RFD regardless of the need for a
reorganization. You've neither acknowledged any of the points in the
RFD, nor have you argued them. Instead, you're holding rec.aquaria
hostage over the existance of sci.aquaria. This type of terrorism
is deplorable. Please state logical reasons for the elimination of
sci.aquaria. If these reasons hold up within sci.aquaria, you will
have enough votes to eliminate it. If not, you will have had your
vote in the fate of sci.aquaria.
David W. Webb
Dustin Laurence
>Sorry, it is not possible to opt out and say that Group-Advice would
>not accept the RFD without it. That's what is causing this ongoing
>problem which ends up in guerilla warfare.
My friend, you didn't hear me clearly. I am NOT removing the .misc
groups without a really overwhelming insistence from the aquaria
readers. Past history makes this reorg nasty enough without that
issue.
The reorg is also for the benefit of the many readers who do not care
about insignificant things like usenet politics, and I will not have
them suffer more than they must over it. If it were just for me, I'd
fight.
There is a time and place for everything. This is not the time nor
the place.
Shawna Jennifer Lerch
>
>
>There are alrady _three_ aquaria newsgroups. We have enough
>aquaria newsgroups. I will vote against any new aquaria newsgroups.
>Get rid of some of the aquaria newsgroups, and I will reconsider.
Are you a follower of *.aquaria? Because your post sounds as if you've never read it,
or that you've only glanced at it, not actually looked at the content of the
discussions. There are (as pointed out numerous times before) different disciplines of
aquaria. Rarely are the discussions of another discipline relevant. People concerned
with reefs aren't likely to be terribly concerned about goldfish, and vice versa. And
as has also been pointed out before, this RFD concerns REC.aquaria, not alt.aquaria or
sci.aquaria. Don't let the fact that there are already 3 aquaria newsgroups keep you
from helping us restructure rec.aquaria so that it is usable.
My two cents worth,
Jen
Jot Powers
call to tie it with the deletion of sci.aquaria is beyond the scope of the
RFD. Let it move to a CFV. The 150+ messages a day in rec.aquaria has led
to some of the on-line gurus of the group to disappear (Dan Rensler, George
Booth, Oleg Kiselev and many more I'm sure). Additionally, I am not and do
not claim to be a guru, but I simply can't parse out the messages that I am
interested in and qualified to answer. This leads to a general lowering of
the quality of the group.
(And if you feel strongly enough, as several people obviously do, please
feel free to write the RFD for deleting sci.aquaria).
--
Jot Powers j...@tmp.medtronic.com
Unix System Administrator, Medtronic Micro-Rel
Current Humorous Quote: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy'
until you can find a rock."
Dustin Laurence
>Why? You've already shown that you do not intend to consider correcting the
>aberration that is sci.aquaria.
You have not convinced me that it is in the interests of the
rec.aquaria readers to drag in that issue. Do you not understand
'reasonable disagreement'?
>...but I see no flexibility on your part.
How ironic. You baldly state what must be done to please you, I don't
find it compelling, and you see that as evidence of my inflexibility?
Why not explain how the current readers of rec.aquaria would benefit
from your plan instead?
The sole purpose of the RFD is to make it easier for readers who have
difficulties with the volume of rec.aquaria. I do not so far believe
that getting (further) into the arcana of net.politics serves that
interest. My own political interests are against the form of this
RFD, as should be obvious from my other posts. However, this RFD will
not form a vehicle for the advancement of my politics, nor of anyone
else's unless they can demonstrate that this would be in the interests
of the readers of the aquaria groups. And if we were going to serve
anyone's political interests, I guess it'd be mine.
Jeffery Schafer
>I believe Dustin's RFD discusses the reorg of rec.aquaria. The incessant
>call to tie it with the deletion of sci.aquaria is beyond the scope of the
>RFD. Let it move to a CFV. The 150+ messages a day in rec.aquaria has led
>to some of the on-line gurus of the group to disappear (Dan Rensler, George
>Booth, Oleg Kiselev and many more I'm sure).
A very good point! I have noticed people that have been disapearing
that have contributed much.
>(And if you feel strongly enough, as several people obviously do, please
> feel free to write the RFD for deleting sci.aquaria).
Some how I don't think that the people who are so strongly opposed
would take the time. They just want to bully others into doing it for
them, and my bet is that they don't read ANY of the aquarium groups.
-Jeff
Colin Douthwaite
: Wilson Angerson <gqv...@udcf.gla.ac.uk> writes:
:
: >I too was initially annoyed by the 4th level .misc groups, but after
: >taking a few deep breaths I've come to the conclusion that we shouldn't
: >try to make an issue of this.
> I will not make an issue of it.
Unfortunately you made it an issue by including the *.misc clause in
the RFD.
> The .misc groups stay unless a really overwhelming show of
> opposition appears from aquaria readers.
What is your definition of a really overwhelming show of opposition ?
Your statement is meaningless without definition.
Here are the May Arbitron stats for the *.aquaria newsgroups:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
|
| +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| |
| | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | |
| | | +-- Recent traffic (megabytes per month)
| | | |
| | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | |
| | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
| | | | | |
| | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V
91000 59% 2397 2.6 26% 0.02 0.8% alt.aquaria
63000 71% 3233 4.5 16% 0.05 0.4% rec.aquaria
33000 71% 930 0.7 51% 0.02 0.2% sci.aquaria
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your definition of a really overwhelming show of opposition ?
Your statement is meaningless without definition.
> Just because I don't dissemble about what I think of the policy
> doesn't mean that I'm not going to follow it.
Obviously. So the criticism you have made is worthless - mere words
to placate those readers who oppose or might oppose the *.misc policy.
> This is absolutely not the RFD to fight that battle with, for many
> reasons.
Sorry, any RFD including the controversial *.misc clause is a
potential battleground - you must surely know that ? Having
introduced the clause you want to push the issue to one side. Very
convenient.
> The RFD will follow tradition unless it becomes clear that enough
> aquaria readers dislike it enough to risk strong opposition.
As mentioned earlier, you need to define that opposition level,
otherwise you can keep shifting the goalposts !
Your statement is valueless as it stands.
> This reorg is most badly needed by those who don't care about net
> politics, so I don't see that happening.
This is not a question of net politics it is a question of a
fundamental change to the existing broad spectrum parent newsgroup,
rec.aquaria by renaming it rec.aquaria.misc.
If the re-org was really so badly needed it would surely have been
more expedient to avoid introducing controversial elements like the
*.misc clauses.
> Essentially, I am just agreeing with you, but I thought I'd better
> make my position clear so that people didn't think I was inviting
> excuses to modify the RFD.
You are now making excuses NOT to modify the RFD.
Bye,
Thomas M. Sasala
No, but the readers of *.aquaria have a vested interest in this
process and should be actively taking part. I am not the one who thinks
he is elite.
Stephen Pushak
There are way too many posts in *.aquaria for us to follow our
particular interest areas. Mine is freshwater plants and thank
goodness we have the mailing list for now. It was just too
difficult to maintain any discussions in the newsgroups because
everything was so diluted with other stuff. If you want an idea
of the VOLUME of specialty postings, just take a look at the
aquatic-plants mailing list. We have 5-10 posts every day and
membership is steadily growing. If you want to get answers on
plant questions, you should put them in a place where the plant
people are likely to see them. Right now, we've moved en masse
to the mailing list from sheer frustration at the bulk of
messages flooding *.aquaria every day. Personally I don't have
time to look at any of the aquaria groups but I will once
rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants is set up. So for now, if you wanted
to hear my views on an aquatic plant subject, your ONLY choices
are to subscribe to the aquatic plant mailing list -or-
vote YES to rec.aquaria reorganization. Maybe you don't care too
much about me but the acknowledged experts also hang out there
and I'm sure they will soon be adding their sentiments here too.
The only quibble I could add is that there should probably be
MORE groups such as bettas, breeding etc. As to the sci.aquaria
and alt.aquaria groups, time will tell if the user community
will migrate to the specialty groups as I think they will.
I call upon all those sympathetic to the cause to voice your
opinions lest the voices of a few should carry and impose another
year or more of overload on *.aquaria!!
---
-- Steve Pushak
email - sp...@hcsd.hac.com
-------------------------------------------------------
| Don't fear what you face; face what you fear! |
-------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
>
> For what it's worth: I'm not a reader, but I'll vote against the
> ..misc group if it shows up in the vote, and most likely not carry
> the group unless I can be convinced that the readership of rec.aquaria
> wants the renaming.
>
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ o...@pell.com
> \/
I'll try to not cross post stuff like this to rec.aquaria, but if any
of you are at pell.com, you might want to let David know your opinions
about having access to the entire rec.aquaria hierarchy.
Rebecca Allbritton
In reference to the comments that rec.humor,rec.humor.funny,rec.humor.oracle
don't have a .misc group, what they do have is a .d (discussion) group. Just
thought I'd throw that in. =) [and for those who don't know, rec.humor.funny
is the moderated version of the newsgroup.]
I've been trying to keep track of this thread, but I really haven't seen any
*substantive* articles which are against the RFD as it now stands, posted by
people who actually read the *.aquaria newsgroups.
Personally, I think every home should have at least one aquarium, and
there are several million fishkeepers in the US alone. Many of them are
now joining us on the net. =)
There is a tremendous variety in the type of information that beginners
and more advanced people need to know or want to share, as the RFD shows.
And usually, if a person stays with the hobby, one's interests
change over time: as one gets into the more technical [or mundane ;) ]
aspects of the hobby, or decides to try a new species, or finds their
interest narrowing to the care and breeding of a specific genus, group of
related species, or a specific species.
If I may use myself as an example, I started out 8 years ago with a single
goldfish in a 10 gallon tank. It grew. It got BIG. It got ill from poor
water quality, so I learned about filtration for fish with short digestive
tracts that will eat anything that fits into their mouths. At 9" SL (ie not
including the tail), I traded my friend in to a fish shop, where it could
find a home in a nice big pond with other BIG goldfish to play with.
Then I got dwarf gouramis, who like to build bubble nests (like little
beaver dams made of bubbles and pieces of plants), so I had to learn about
keeping the water surface still, how to keep plants alive, and how to raise
the fry (baby fish.) Later, I got many other types of fish in the same
family, and was successful in spawning all of them.
I checked out books, but I got just about all of the critical information
about how to be successful at this by reading the *.aquaria newsgroups, and
when my site's newsfeed was down, e-mailing a guru who generously helped me
to keep my first batch of fry alive. His example is one of the reasons I try
to share what I have found out in my fishkeeping experience with other
people.
Then I decided that I had to have an Oscar, which is a cichlid, and has very
different needs than the 3" to 5" fish I had kept before, so I had to learn
how to take care of them. For this stage of my fishkeeping, I had to learn
about filtration for Big Tanks, and find out by reading oscar anecdotes how
devious and clever (and adorable) they can be, decide for myself the merits
/dangers of live food vs. frozen food or pelleted foods (and how to skin
frozen peas), learn how best to arrange tanks for fish that routinely
redocorate, sometimes flinging offending objects out of the tank.
Recently I have discovered an interesting type of South American cichlid
called Geophagus "Surinamensiods", because there are fascinating changes
taking place in the taxonomy of this group. A gentleman on
the net was kind enough to send me a copy of a thoroughly researched article
(5 page bibliography is always impressive, don't you think?) which led me to
discover that I had in my tanks a fairly common geo, and a species that
according to noted experts had never been exported. And I've got 4 of them.
<grin> No one has documented their spawning or fry rearing behavior, so I
have an adventure ahead of me.
Anyway, my point is that at different times I have had different interests,
and sometimes I feel like reading the latest debates on biofiltration and
sometimes I could go for months without caring about it, as long as my tanks
are clean.
Sometimes I feel like talking about plants, or finding out why
something is turning yellow that did fine before; sometimes I like
explaining in detail how I got my bubble-nest builders to spawn; and
sometimes I miss the days before the goldfish list was created, when
intelligent discussions of keeping them floated through the newsgroups.
(Now the only goldfish posts tend to be "my goldfish is swimming upside
down" & "now it's dead".)
Howard Rebel is one of those people who have left the
general aquaria newsgroups who qualifies as a guru, but he has gone to the
goldfish list, perhaps one day to return, when the CFV passes a newsgroup
that fits his interests and his time constraints.
And quite a lot of the time I don't have time to do
more than search through the *.aquaria newsgroups for posts on South
American cichlids and read the cichlid mailing list. I catch up on the other
topics when I can, although I try to avoid anything to do with marine --
it's too tempting and I don't have the money right now. But, someday:
seahorses. =)
When the time comes, please vote for the reorganization as it stands. Much
thought and debate has gone into it, and it is probably the only way we will
get the gurus to come back off the mailing lists to the newsgroups, where
the new people can see who they are and benefit from their postings.
Thank you for your time; I didn't mean to go on for so long, but fish have
become very important to me in my life and my home, and I care very much
about this reorganization, and all the new fish people out there who don't
realize how much there is to know to really take good care of your fish (and
how much easier it is if you start out right the first time.)
Sincerely,
Rebecca...
--
Rebecca Allbritton The only difference between us and the animals
sek...@eden.com is our ability to accessorize.
Jay Maynard
>The RFD deals with rec.aquaria only. Sci.aquaria can be addressed.
>This RFD doesn't address sci.aquaria.
That's a bug, not a feature.
>you're really upset about the existance of the group. Your posts don't
>give any explanation as to why other than that you view the creation
>of sci.aquaria as an act of deception. I don't know what the
>intentions were when it was created. I understand that sci and rec.aquaria
>were on the same RFD and that rec.aquaria was added to try and steal
>votes from sci. I also understand that sci passed anyways. I don't
>understand how the results of this are injurious to you. Perhaps if
>you could tell us why you want sci.aquaria eliminated, then we could
>write an RFD for it. I guarantee that it will cause a great deal of
>discussion, and the people who only have access to the sci hierarchy
>will oppose it. Sci.aquaria is currently a busy newsgroup, getting from
>25-50 messages per day. I think that you will need to show very good
>reasons for your wish to dismantle it.
Your understanding of the history is fundamentally incorrect.
The original group was created as sci.aquaria. It was alone on the ballot.
It was placed in sci specifically because its proponent, Richard Sexton, did
not want it placed in rec because he felt that sci would get better
propagation. (I believe Peter da Silva may still have a copy of the message
Richard posted that admitted this.) It was intended to cover all aspects of
recreational aquaria. Despite massive opposition, it passed. That passage -
by a simple majority - is the reason that we now have a 2/3 majority
requirement for a group to succeed.
The group should never have been created. It was proposed under false
pretenses, and passed despite the massive opposition of those who know how
things should work. It is a recreational group in a scientific hierarchy.
The group rec.aquaria was created _after_ sci.aquaria, though not by very
long, because a substantial number of news administrators refused to carry
sci.aquaria due to the trojan horse nature of the group; it was felt that a
real recreational aquaria group was needed to serve those people.
>In the last 6 months, the message traffic on sci.aquaria has gone from
>10-20 messages per day to 25-50 messages per day. If you succeed in
>blocking the rec.aquaria reorganization, this number will continue
>to increase.
If the reorganization of rec.aquaria is so badly needed, then maybe the
proponents should consider correcting the existence of sci.aquaria as well -
for if they do not, they run the risk of jeopardizing it.
>If we don't succeed in reorganizing rec.aquaria, the six months wait
>period could see the message traffic in *.aquaria double across the board
>again. Do you really want that?
No. You know what it will take to remove my opposition and that of other
news administrators.
>You've called sci.aquaria an "abberation" and a "trojan horse" would
>you care to explain the terms that you use based upon the current use
>of the newsgroup? You've also stated that you find us inflexible.
>We need this RFD to go to CFV and we don't want to change it. We've
>offered you the opportunity to write an RFD to remove sci.aquaria.
>You've ignored that offer so far.
I'm not the person to do so; as you point out, I'm not an aquaria person.
Besides, there's a currently active RFD on the subject, and another just to
fix sci.aquaria would not be allowed, because it would be seen as addressing
a question that should be addressed in the current one.
>Instead, you're holding rec.aquaria
>hostage over the existance of sci.aquaria. This type of terrorism
>is deplorable. Please state logical reasons for the elimination of
>sci.aquaria. If these reasons hold up within sci.aquaria, you will
>have enough votes to eliminate it. If not, you will have had your
>vote in the fate of sci.aquaria.
I've explained above why I think sci.aquaria is a Bad Thing. It is not
carried on my system for that reason. Now is the perfect time to correct
that aberration. My opposition to the rec.aquaria reorg is solely based on
its failure to correct that aberration.
David W. Webb
>
[snip]
>
> What is your definition of a really overwhelming show of opposition ?
> Your statement is meaningless without definition.
>
>
An overwhelming show of opposition would be hundreds of negative
responses from contributors to the rec.aquaria newsgroup. Since there
are thousands of readers, this would even be minor. As it is, there
have been five or six gripes expressed about it, but no adamant
opposition from within rec.aquaria. This means that the split is
far more important to the readers than whether or not some of the
groups have .misc as a suffix. BTW, I can't count the number of
requests for a split. Usually once a month, a thread has gone for
5-10 messages requesting a split. The originator of the thread has
invariably been on the group for less than a month. These threads
have been satisfied pretty quickly with a message explaining the RFD
that was in work and that has now been proposed. They finish up with
3-4 messages basically saying "Good, then hurry up."
>
> Sorry, any RFD including the controversial *.misc clause is a
> potential battleground - you must surely know that ? Having
> introduced the clause you want to push the issue to one side. Very
> convenient.
>
No battles were fought within the rec.aquaria group about this. To
me, this means that *.misc isn't a big enough issue for us to bother
with. We want the CFV to pass the first time through. How many
adamant proponents of the *.misc suffix are there? I don't know.
You appear to be an adamant opponent of the *.misc suffix. I haven't
seen your name on any of the rec.aquaria posts. Do you read
rec.aquaria?
David W. Webb
>
>
> May I point out something I consider rather obvious?
>
> Very few posters to the new newsgroups will likely have read the RFD,
> and even if you put "please don't crosspost" into the group FAQ, it's
> unlikely this will cut down the number of crossposts, because IMHO the
> newsgroups as suggested are sliced way too thin.
>
Something that I've learned by reading the aquarium newsgroups over the
last several months is that they police themselves nicely. If the
readers intend to use rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants for the discussion
of aquatic plants related issues, a crossposted discussion primarily
about goldfish, cichlids, or FAQ answered questions on water quality
will be discouraged actively as it occurs. This has happened over and
over again in my experience so far (commercial advertising, for example),
and will continue to happen. It doesn't take long for a rec.aquaria
newbie to become learned in the ways of the newsgroup.
>
> Certainly the groups represented in the RFD have representation,
> but that's not the question. You can argue just about anything having
> representation on rec.aquaria, even a razor thin heirarchy like this:
>
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.mollies
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.plecos
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.angelfish
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.gourmais
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.gourmais.dwarf
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.community.tigerbarbs
> ....
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants.java-moss
> ....
> ...etc
>
>
> ..since there are posts including these fish all the time in rec.aquaria.
>
> However, having interest in a topic in a news group is only
> NECCESSARY to make a subgroup out of it. It is *NOT* SUFFICIENT.
>
I agree that these are not broad-enough categories. However, the
mailing lists represented by cichlids, aquatic plants, and goldfish
enthusiasts have requested and have shown the need for specialty
newsgroups in these areas. The discus list and the bettas list have
not requested newsgroups, and the killies list already has one.
I agree that a group devoted exclusively to the study of a very narrow
category could be a bit dull. However, the groups mentioned above
aren't. Cichlids and plants have hundreds of species, and goldfish,
although containing a single genus, or perhaps species (I'm not sure),
has a wide variety of markedly different strains resulting from hundreds
of years of selective breeding.
Why doesn't guppies fall into this category? Simple. An organized
group of guppy enthusiasts has not requested a separate newsgroup. The
groups in the RFD have 200+ subscribers each. I'm on the plants mailing
list. It was created as a stopgap measure due to the absence of a
dedicated aquatic plants newsgroup. Will these mailing lists continue?
probably, but the newsgroup is a much freindlier format for gathering
this information. I don't have to worry about my mailbox filling up
with messages when I go on vacation if I'm following a newsgroup. I
can also jump in and jump back out of a discussion in another newsgroup
easily if I have a question. This isn't as easy with a mailing list.
> To create a viable sub-group, you must also be able to answer
> the following question in the affirmative:
>
> Are there a significant number of people who would
> likely follow this topic *exclusively* ?
>
Yes. This is demonstrated in the RFD in each of the cases mentioned.
I consider 200+ dedicated subscribers capable of generating enough
messages per day to warrant a separate newsgroup.
> > I don't see myself using the .misc groups much at all. My areas of
> > interest are well defined in two of the specialty groups. I agree
> > that they will probably get a lot of traffic, but I don't agree that
> > the specialty groups won't work. There's just too much clearly defined
> > specialty traffic already.
>
> If you mean reef systems, I agree. That's why I put a group
> specifically for reefs in my suggested heirarchy. Ditto for chichlids.
>
Before the plants mailing list was created two months ago, you would
see an average of 15 plant-related messaged per day on rec.aquaria (IMO).
Ditto for goldfish. The number of cichlid-related posts on rec.aquaria
dropped quite a bit when the cichlids list went on line. Now you see
5 or 6 because the plant people have a mailing list and are waiting
for the split before they get back on the newsgroups. Don't
underestimate the popularity of aquatic plants just because you don't
see a lot of posts. Yes, there are more posts on reefs than any other
orgainzed specialty. They don't have a mailing list, and reefs are a
very popular type of marine aquarium. Don't punish the freshwater
enthusiasts just because there are more major divisions, though.
Goldfish are coldwater fish and require a specialized environment. This
has lead goldfish keepers to develop specialized techniques and a separate,
though related section of the hobby. Plants have specialized requirements.
This has led plant keepers to branch out and do things that would be
disastrous if the plants weren't there. Cichlids have particular
behaviour types and some require a specialized environment to keep
them happy. This has led cichlid keepers to do things differently.
Reefkeepers also do things differently. Most fish-only marine aquarists
wouldn't dare take the bio-balls out of their trickle filters. Each
one of these areas represents a specialized area of aquarium technology
with a large and avid following.
> Believe it or not, there are people who actually *enjoy* helping
> others. Also, while is is informative and extremely appreciated, the
> FAQ doesn't answer *every* question.
>
I don't know how long you've been reading rec.aquaria, but I help people
quite a bit if their question falls within my area of experience. If
their question is in another area, I let someone else handle it. However,
I don't want to dig through dozens of "HELP, my angels are spawning!!!"
messages to find a "What plants to use in a warm water tank" question.
> >> rec.aquaria.fresh
> >>
> Hopefully, most of the angelfish/tigerbarb posts would be diverted to
> the "help" or "wizards" newsgroup, whatever you want to call it, leaving
> those who can't be bothered with answering questions with a low enough
> traffic to endure.
I doubt it.
> rec.aquaria.misc
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
> rec.aquaria.marine.misc
>
> I say no. If you try this, all you'll get is massive crossposts.
> Now *you* may find this acceptable, because you don't intend to read
> any of the misc groups, but others who'd like advanced freshwater
> and saltwater groups probably won't.
>
rec.aquaria.misc - Areas of fishkeeping that really don't fit in any
above hierarchies: Brackish fish, maybe.
rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc - Angels and Tiger Barb posts.
rec.aquaria.marine.misc - You know what I'm talking about.
> Again I ask: how many people would be interested in reading
> rec.aquaria.tech exclusively, especially since the type of equipment
> people are interested in depends on the environment they have?
> Skimmers are really only a saltwater/reef subject, and UGFs are really
> only a freshwater one.
>
Exclusively? Probably not very many. Interested in reading it? A lot.
Foam fractioners are common to more than just the marine/reef discipline.
Trickle filters are used in every area of fishkeeping. UGF's, contrary
to your statement, are used in both marine and freshwater environments,
just ask Gary Deutschmann. Lighting and light fixtures are major areas
of concern in both reef and plant tanks. UV sterilizers, RO and DI
units, stands, racks, canopies, cover glass comparisons, bulb comparisons,
fluidized beds, algae scrubbers, substrate circulation systems, etc.
are cross-discipline equipment discussions that a lot of the "experts"
out there requested a common forum for.
>
>
> > The stated subdivisions reflect more than a year of planning and
> > consensus within rec.aquaria. Your proposal to eliminate the freshwater
> > specialty groups would make it more difficult to find the information
> > you are looking for, or to make your information readable IMO.
>
> Excuse me, David, but the *RFD* is intended to *develop* consensus.
> And given the number of responses to the RFD, I would hardly agree
> with your assertion that such a consensus has already been established.
>
> Again, if you divide freshwater into such groups, you are going
> to get lots of crossposts. I can just see it now: "Help I added a plant
> and now my swordtail has white spots!!!" Posted to: rec.aquaria.misc,
> rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc, rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, alt.aquaria,
> and sci.aquaria. Just what we all need.
>
The consensus from within rec.aquaria was arrived at over a year ago
and has been supported within the group as the RFD was researched and
prepared. Where were you when the discussions went across rec.aquaria?
When the RFD proposals were posted and discussed? Why didn't you bring
your reorg plans to the table then? Please look in the archives and I
think that many of your questions/objections will be answered.
"Help, I added a pleco and now my swordtail has white spots" belongs in
rec.aquaria.misc. I don't see your logic as to how it will wind up in
rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants. Alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria are separate
subjects, and BTW, I haven't run into many newbies that even know how
to cross-post. If they post into rec.aquaria.misc, someone who reads
that group will kindly (hopefully) suggest that they might get a better
response to their question by posting it on rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc.
>
> > You'll see me in rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants and in rec.aquaria.tech.
> > I probably won't spend much time elsewhere, just because these are my
> > specialty interests. I expect to find a lot of reef enthusiasts who
> > share my point, except they will substitute rec.aquaria.marine.reef
> > for the plants group.
>
> With the suggested subdivision, I'm sure I'd see you elsewhere.
> It gets awfully lonely in a newsgroup all by yourself. Especially
> when most of the articles have been crossposted from "misc".
>
I can think of 20-30 names of people who share my interests specifically.
Just logging on to the FishRoom MUD should be indication enough of that.
If you stay in the plant room for 2-3 hours, you'll have conversations
with 3-4 people at least. I know of a number of reefkeepers who will
use the .tech group as much as I will.
David W. Webb
>
> I've explained above why I think sci.aquaria is a Bad Thing. It is not
> carried on my system for that reason. Now is the perfect time to correct
> that aberration. My opposition to the rec.aquaria reorg is solely based on
> its failure to correct that aberration.
No, you haven't.
You still haven't explained what about sci.aquaria is so injurious to
you. You haven't verified my statements on the content of sci.aquaria,
or disputed them, just complained about it. You've offered no
assistance in your venture, just demands. You also haven't given a
reason to delete sci.aquaria, just a demand to delete it.
I have absolutely no desire to terrorize your interests in the same
way you are attacking the rec.aquaria users. I can just hope that
the reorg will pass despite your attempts, and I hope that you will
find some kind of meaning other than vengeance from your actions.
I have no more to say about sci.aquaria in the discussion of this RFD.
Bring on the CFV.
Jeffery Schafer
>In article <3svihv$1...@henry.ov.com> st...@henry.ov.com (Steve Maurer) writes:
>>David W. Webb <dw...@ti.com>:
>>>st...@henry.ov.com (Steve Maurer) wrote:
>> I guess somebody better tell that newbie Brad Templeton he created
>>a newsgroup without properly following the "unwritten law" that forced
>>him to rename rec.humor. ( :-\ for the sarcasm impaired )
>
> Once again, to me humor and funny seem like oxymorons, but I don't read
>the news groups--so its none of my buisness.
Sorry, I didn't mean to use the word 'oxymoron'. What I meant was they
sound the same.
-Jeff
David Brockman Wheeler
Jay Maynard <jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>I've explained above why I think sci.aquaria is a Bad Thing. It is not
>carried on my system for that reason. Now is the perfect time to correct
>that aberration. My opposition to the rec.aquaria reorg is solely based on
>its failure to correct that aberration.
I couldn't have answered better than Jay Maynard himslef--
____________________|_______________
/ \
>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
David Wheeler
Jeffery Schafer
>st...@henry.ov.com (Steve Maurer) wrote:
>>
>>
>> May I point out something I consider rather obvious?
>>
>> Very few posters to the new newsgroups will likely have read the RFD,
>> and even if you put "please don't crosspost" into the group FAQ, it's
>> unlikely this will cut down the number of crossposts, because IMHO the
>> newsgroups as suggested are sliced way too thin.
>>
>
>Something that I've learned by reading the aquarium newsgroups over the
>last several months is that they police themselves nicely. If the
>readers intend to use rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants for the discussion
>of aquatic plants related issues, a crossposted discussion primarily
>about goldfish, cichlids, or FAQ answered questions on water quality
>will be discouraged actively as it occurs. This has happened over and
>over again in my experience so far (commercial advertising, for example),
>and will continue to happen. It doesn't take long for a rec.aquaria
>newbie to become learned in the ways of the newsgroup.
You want proof positive of the policing? Just ask Mr. Schuh!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
>
>Before the plants mailing list was created two months ago, you would
>see an average of 15 plant-related messaged per day on rec.aquaria (IMO).
There's a plant mailing list??
That's why I don't see the posts anymore!!
I did enjoy reading them on occasion, but I don't want to be having
them thrown into my mailbox...
-Jeff
Jeffery Schafer
Have you ever kept fish? I find it hard to understand why you feel
there is no science in it.
However, when rec.aquaria is re-organized, I plan to stop all cross
posting. I believe that the crossposting that occurs right now is caused
by system administrators who refuse to carry a specific one. Therefore,
if I post to just one group, I am always wondering if there is someone
that isn't reading it.
>>You've called sci.aquaria an "abberation" and a "trojan horse" would
>>you care to explain the terms that you use based upon the current use
>>of the newsgroup? You've also stated that you find us inflexible.
>>We need this RFD to go to CFV and we don't want to change it. We've
>>offered you the opportunity to write an RFD to remove sci.aquaria.
>>You've ignored that offer so far.
>
>I'm not the person to do so; as you point out, I'm not an aquaria person.
>Besides, there's a currently active RFD on the subject, and another just to
>fix sci.aquaria would not be allowed, because it would be seen as addressing
>a question that should be addressed in the current one.
I assume you mean you are not the person to create a RFD to remove
sci.aquaria. Or do you mean you are not the person to explain what
'abberation' and 'trojan horse' mean?
Also, if you don't care one way or the other about rec.aquaria
reorganization, then why are you going to vote against it?
I always thought that the system administrators were supposed to be
doing what was in the interest of their subscribers.
>I've explained above why I think sci.aquaria is a Bad Thing.
I missed that part. What examples can you give of aquariums having
nothing to do with science?
As I said before, there is cross posting to the three *.aquaria groups
because of system administrators such as yourself who do not carry all
three groups.
If its not your system, why do you care? You already said yourself
that you do not care about the *.aquaria groups.
-jeff
Charles Bay
> Lewis Johnson <le...@pliny.ufl.edu> wrote:
> I appluad this effort.I belive this will help to bring some of the old hands
> back by elimninating the cluter. In my area of personal intrest, it should
> also help people to understand you can have a marine tank without it being a
> reef system.
> This re-organization should also help to focus the activity into
> rec.aquaria.*, so maybe in the future I will not need to follow the other
> two *.aquaria groups.
> Aquarium keeping is a very specialized hobby any more. The newsgroups should
> reflect this.
I could not agree more. There's a *lot* of traffic in rec.aquaria, and
most of it I would call non-cohesive: Many of the posts present are not
of interest to many of the readers. Marine keepers have their issues,
reefkeepers theirs, freshwater theirs, and aquatic plant keepers have
theirs. Unless the person is actively engaged or learning about issues
in each of these areas, there is a lot of junk one must wade through.
It is a very specialized hobby/science. Many newbies keep aquaria and get
good information, but we are often dealing with a lot of advanced science and
new information to the field. The current organization simply does not
provide the granularity neccessary to maintain viable and specialized
conversations and sharing of information in its present state.
This re-organization is needed and over-due.
--charley
cb...@lookout.ecte.uswc.uswest.com