rec.radio.amateur reorg/RFD discussion summary 4/11
Ian Kluft
Current Status of the Discussion
How to Participate in the Discussion
Summary of RFD proposed newsgroups (Option I)
Summary of RFD proposed newsgroups (Option II)
Notes from the discussion so far
Current Status of the Discussion
--------------------------------
The RFD (Request for Discussion) for the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur
was posted on March 26 to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, and all the
subgroups of rec.radio.amateur. A summary of the proposed newsgroups can be
found later in this article.
We have passed the half-way point in the 30-day discussion period. Current
tallies of opinions posted to news.groups are as follows:
in favor: 25 people 93 articles
opposed: 14 people 30 articles
undecided or unclear: 10 people 18 articles
(the "unclear" category only includes replies that were off the subject)
These numbers may seem small by UseNet standards but it has actually been one
of the larger of many ongoing discussions on news.groups. Support has been
running around the 2-to-1 in favor area since the discussion started. Due
to the support expressed, we expect that it will be possible to issue a CFV
(Call for Votes) some time after the end of the discussion period, which will
conclude on April 26, 1993.
How to Participate in the Discussion
------------------------------------
If you have not yet expressed an opinion on the proposed split, you can make
it easy on yourself by just replying to this article onto news.groups (the
Followup-To line already specifies that for you) and say
I support the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur
or
I do not support the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur
YOUR REPLY MUST BE POSTED TO NEWS.GROUPS IN ORDER TO BE AN OFFICIAL PART OF
THE NEWSGROUP CREATION PROCESS. You may cross-post to rec.radio.amateur.misc
if you prefer to.
It would be even more helpful, if you support the split of r.r.a.misc, to
indicate which option from the RFD that you prefer. It's OK to say you like
both. They are summarized below. You can still make things pretty easy for
yourself by only posting
I support the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur (Option I)
or
I support the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur (Option II)
or
I support the reorganization of rec.radio.amateur (either option)
Here's a question to ask yourself as you consider these proposals:
Which proposal would make you more likely to vote for all the newsgroups
when voting time arrives? (Separate concurrent votes will be held for
each newsgroup in accordance with the newsgroup creation guidelines.)
Summary of RFD proposed newsgroups (Option I)
---------------------------------------------
(all groups unmoderated)
Newsgroup name description
-------------- -------------------------------
rec.radio.amateur.misc all Ham radio topics not covered below
i.e. video, stories, humor, new topics
[no modification to existing newsgroup]
rec.radio.amateur.policy regulations & policy issues
[no modification to existing newsgroup]
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc packet radio & other digital modes
[includes old rec.radio.amateur.packet]
rec.radio.amateur.digital.tcp-ip TCP/IP via packet radio
rec.radio.amateur.operating Operating procedures and questions: DX,
CW, contests, propagation, repeaters
rec.radio.amateur.products manufactured equipment, modifications
rec.radio.amateur.instruction Ham radio instruction & examination
rec.radio.amateur.construction homebrewing & experimentation
rec.radio.amateur.space amateur radio in space: satellites,
earth-moon-earth (EME), shuttle, MIR
rec.radio.amateur.emerg-services emergency services: RACES, ARES, NTS
Summary of RFD proposed newsgroups (Option II - "the .tech option")
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(all groups unmoderated)
Newsgroup name description
-------------- -------------------------------
rec.radio.amateur.misc all Ham radio topics not covered below
i.e. video, stories, humor, new topics
[no modification to existing newsgroup]
rec.radio.amateur.policy regulations & policy issues
[no modification to existing newsgroup]
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc packet radio & other digital modes
[includes old rec.radio.amateur.packet]
rec.radio.amateur.digital.tcp-ip TCP/IP via packet radio
rec.radio.amateur.operating Operating procedures and questions: DX,
CW, contests, propagation, repeaters
rec.radio.amateur.emerg-services emergency services: RACES, ARES, NTS
rec.radio.amateur.tech Technical discussions about Ham Radio:
construction, theory, examinations,
video
Notes from the discussion so far
--------------------------------
The following notes may help you determine if any suggestions you are
considering have already been discussed. Your opinion is important so be
sure to show your support or opposition and make any suggestions you believe
would help make this a better, more successful proposal.
* There has been strong agreement that r.r.a.misc has too much traffic.
* One of the main points made by those opposing the split has been a concern
that there may be a lot of cross-posting of articles across the proposed
newsgroups. r.r.a.policy was commonly used as an example.
* Rebuttal to the cross-posting argument pointed out that even in r.r.a.policy
there is currently very little cross-posting. With numbers to show this was
a misconception, one person withdrew opposition and began supporting the
split.
* A point made by proponents of the split was that r.r.a.policy is not a good
comparison. All the proposed newsgroups were modeled after r.r.a.packet,
which was made for a subject that many Hams are interested in. r.r.a.policy
was just a place to throw away an unwanted subject. Still others said that
r.r.a.policy has plenty of ongoing policy-related discussion and has also
worked pretty well.
* On the subject of cross-posting, there has been some discussion about a
netiquette guide like that found on rec.aviation for the past several years.
The idea may be considered regardless of the result of the vote.
* Some concern was expressed by both supporters and opposers about the
Info-Hams mail list. A common concern was that the mail lists will need to
match the newsgroups in order for this to work. Comments from Brian Kantor
indicated a wait-and-see position. He did not rule out making new mail lists
if the newsgroups pass but he is understandably not enthusiastic since he
has plenty of other work to do.
* Two people questioned why the proposal includes making a subhierarchy for
r.r.a.digital.misc and r.r.a.digital.tcp-ip. It was pointed out that these
were requested by users of r.r.a.packet due to the explosion of new digital
modes. There has been no opposition from the r.r.a.packet community.
* Most people supporting the split have not indicated which option (I or II)
they support. It was noted that it's been difficult to determine which will
be the most-likely-to-succeed choice to put on the CFV.
* Those who prefer Option I seem to do so because the newsgroup names are
clearer and more focused. It was said that r.r.a.tech is too general to
differentiate itself significantly from r.r.a.misc. So the advantage is
that Option I avoids some confusion. (Option I adds 7 newsgroups)
* Those who prefer Option II (r.r.a.tech) seem to do so because it has fewer
newsgroups than Option I while still offering an area for technical
discussion away from r.r.a.misc. So the advantage is that Option II is not
as large an increase in newsgroups. (Option II adds 5 newsgroups)
* A preference was stated to change r.r.a.products to r.r.a.equipment.
Rebuttals said that would be confusing next to r.r.a.construction. The
suggestion did not have enough support to be added to the proposal.
* A preference was stated to change r.r.a.construction to r.r.a.homebrewing.
Rebuttals said that the name would not be clear enough to outsiders or
newcomers. The suggestion did not have enough support to be added to the
proposal.
* A preference was stated to change r.r.a.operating to r.r.a.dx. Rebuttals
said this would eliminate coverage for many other aspects of operating
a radio. (Notably, UHF/VHF repeaters.) Also, this was considered on the
rra-reorg mail list prior to the RFD, where DX and repeaters were combined
to make r.r.a.operating. Another suggestion was to add r.r.a.dx alongside
r.r.a.operating. The suggestion does not appear to have enough support but
some discussion may continue.
* A preference was stated to add an r.r.a.bulletins newsgroup. No replies
were made to a subsequent poll on the subject so the suggestion is assumed
to have insufficient support. One problem was noted that it mostly overlaps
rec.radio.info which serves all of rec.radio, including rec.radio.amateur.*.
* A couple articles suggested adding an r.r.a.flame newsgroup. Most
participants seem to have assumed that was said tongue-in-cheek. It has not
been taken seriously.
* r.r.a.space appears to have significant support. It will probably be on the
CFV (call for votes) whether Option I or II is selected as the final model.
It was noted that this will mean that Option II will add 6 newsgroups
instead of 5. (r.r.a.space was previously only on Option I.)
* A suggestion was made to add an RDF (radio direction finding) newsgroup to
the proposal. The original suggestion was to call it r.r.a.jamming. Another
article suggested a clearer name of r.r.a.rdf. An opposing opinion said
there is not enough traffic to make a separate newsgroup for this topic.
This subject is not done being discussed but does not yet have enough support
in the discussion to add it to the proposal.
--
Ian Kluft KD6EUI PP-ASEL Amdahl Corporation, Open Systems Development
ikl...@uts.amdahl.com Santa Clara, CA
[disclaimer: any opinions expressed are mine only... not those of my employer]
Mark G. Salyzyn
>I would like to see the formation of the r.r.a.bulletins newsgroup with the
>sole purpose of its creation being to accept selected crossposts from
>rec.radio.info.
I'l do it! (if there be a vote) ;-)
If you read the FAQ for the rec.radio.info group, you will see examples
of methods to filter out *just* the Amateur Radio related bulletins
(Solar Reports notwithstanding at the moment, but I am working on it).
>My reasoning for creation being that information of this sort has wide appeal
>and should not get burried in a newsgroup with a "select" readership.
and rec.radio.amateur.bulletin would not? rec.radio.info has a far broader
scope (I would hope ...)
>Follow on discussions would probably take place primarily in r.r.a.policy and
>r.r.a.operating.
<point taken>
Ciao -- 73 de VE6MGS/Mark -sk-
Mark G. Salyzyn
>Moderation has proven to be extremely light in practice.
Ouch, so my secret is out! ;-)
>Relatively
>straightfoward use of kill files and news administration techniques
>would allow the presentation of articles to be easily customized
>anyway.
This (or the education and side effects thereof) has been the most
controversial part of the group ... I can not believe an `information only'
group could be controversial ;-}
>I would not be opposed to a bulletin newsgroup, provided it was
>moderated, and coordinated with the efforts of rec.radio.info to avoid
>redundancy.
Heck, it can be done automatically using the `straightforward use of news
administration techniques'. In fact, this group (well, rec.radio.amateur.info)
existed on my machine as a local group (if the leaks be ignored ;-) using one
short sys line and a small shell script ...
Ciao -- Mark
Power hungry and in many kill files near you
Mark G. Salyzyn
>This might work for now but what will rec.radio.info become in a few months or
>years?
*I* am not sure what will happen to rec.radio.info after the r.r.a.misc
reorg. I think it would be best to just wait and see. I know one thing,
searching for bulletin posters will be harder ... ;-)
>>Or is the intent to remove bulletins from r.r.a.misc? I'll assume that's it.
>This is precisely what I was trying to do. Good assumption!
This will happen with the re-org (r.r.a.space, r.r.a.emerg-serv,
r.r.a.dx/operating) anyways. *some* may continue (even cross posted) to
r.r.a.misc (not my doing, just me reading into some peoples motives for
posting information).
Ciao -- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
>> I still believe that r.r.a.bulletin for bulletins w.r.t. amateur
>>radio would serve a valid purpose. Not that the purpose of r.r.info
>>should be undercut; instead there is interest in a newsgroup for
>>solar, propogation, DX, AMSAT, and ARRL bulletins without the clutter
>>of programming schedules of broadcast stations. Why dont we put it
>>to a *VOTE*? I dont see an unmoderated newsgroup for .bulletins as
>>a problem....
Well, net-wisdom indicates that you would have more noise in r.r.a.bulletin,
if left unmoderated, than the paultry number of non-amateur postings in
r.r.info could ever create. If made moderated, it would be painless,
in many respects. But I look at the `noise' in r.r.info and r.r.a.bulletin
looks silly ... Even sans a kill file/filtering, three keystrokes a week
extra doesn't sound like a problem ;-)
>Well, even if the newsgroup is perfectly behaved, it WILL steal the
>thunder from rec.radio.info, because given the choice between posting
>right away, and waiting for a moderator to deal with it, many will
>choose the former, and rec.radio.info may starve.
r.r.info would starve, then that is what the population asks for ... ;-}
Besides, the delay to posting is pretty small (<6hrs) minus the mandatory
beauty sleep ...
>We already have a relatively straightforward bulletin-handling scheme
>with rec.radio.info, with a dedicated moderator whom I'm sure would
>prefer not to significantly increase his workload (either in
>administering a second group if moderated, or campaigning for more
>people to post also to the moderated rec.radio.info newsgroup if
>unmoderated).
Ya, what he sez!
-- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
> There is one major reason to make an umoderated r.r.a.bulletin; the
>faster changing data could move more quickly.
Sorry, DX and ARRL reports are directly posted. There would be *no*
difference in posting speed. Some of the AMSAT reports are currently reposted
because of the momentum of the previous system of posting. I was hoping for
a fix to occur at the mail-to-news gateways (but have not yet got any
responses from the admins yet) to allow cross-posting.
Keep in mind, Kermit, that one of the goals of rec.radio.info is to
try to get the articles posted at the source. news.answers operates under
the same paradigm ... there is *no* difference in posting speed between
what we are doing now and a unmoderated group when it comes to periodic
previously approved bulletin sources (if there is, I am working hard to
fix that, broken automated tools not-with-standing :-).
>Also, unless I am missing something, the DX, AMSAT, and ARRL Bulletins
>do not always appear on rec.radio.info within a day.
Blame this on propogation through the net, you are seeing them as fast as
the news can flow ... Moderation does not neceassarily mean all the
bulletins have to be hand approved by the moderator (sometimes it simply
requires quick hands on the cancel article keys :-)
Ciao -- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
>>I believe Dr. Kelso (tke...@blackbird.afit.af.mil) was handling those.
>>Because of technical problems with cross-posting directly that are
>>peculiar to his site, he separately posts them to *.misc and *.info.
>>Mark is actively working with the few individuals having technical
>>problems to allow prompt, and simultaneous, crossposting. In any event,
>>the newsgroup mostly works, and I'm hesitant to throw out the concept
>>for a few bugs in the system.
>That's who to contact... Mark? Should we leave that to you?
Yup ...
Dr. Kelso currently sends the postings to me for posting (which get gleaned
automatically and posted immediately from my site), he has indicated that
things will improve shortly :-)
John's SpaceNews reports may also be solved shortly as well, he is
`experimenting' ...
Solar reports are still posted at my site from Cary's mailing list (and also
passed to packet radio too), but I am reluctant to have them cross-posted at
the moment since I can not compete against the fine propogation time that the
ucsd.edu mail to news gateway has (at the moment, the Internet host that is
responsible for my postings is short of disk space and has been moved to low
priority solutions ...). Also, my attempt to have his messages cross-posted
to sci.space.news (also a moderated group) as well met with, ahem, problems.
If anyone has a well connected central site that is willing to hack at the
mail to news software to allow cross-posting? ;-}
The next thing to do is to standardize the Message-IDs so that messages
going to packet match, somewhat, to the Packet BIDs:
Message-ID: <$amsa...@ampr.org>
allowing for messages to cross back and forth between the two domains ...
Ciao -- Mark
My simple world