RFD: rec.radio.amateur reorganization
Jon Bloom
>ma...@ve6mgs.ampr.org (Mark G. Salyzyn) writes:
>>We have two proposals on the table here! I have not seen many comment in
>>any major fashion about these two proposals.
>
>Agreed. I'm finding it difficult to take a tally of which one has more
>support because so few comments have been posted on it. (Many thanks to those
>who have mentioned a preference either way.)
Well, since you ask... :-)
>OK... friendly counteropinion time... I support Option I. (Can anyone guess
>whose input contributed to which parts of the RFD?) The reason is because
>Ham Radio is almost entirely a technical subject.
I agree with your conclusion, if not completely with your reasoning.
I notice no one has suggested folding .operating into .tech, so I
guess there are *some* nontechnical components of ham radio!
A better way to put it, I think, is that most parts of ham radio have
some technical *component*. (That may be what you meant.) That being
the case, having a .tech group and a .misc group will lead to much
confusion as to where to post. Which will lead to a greater level of
crossposting with the associated problems for some users.
>The r.r.a.tech group seems
>(to me anyway) to blur too much with r.r.a.misc due to the breadth of its
>coverage. I think that breadth will cause confusion as when users try to
>pick r.r.a.tech or r.r.a.misc to post in...
It blurs not only with the r.r.a.misc group, but with other groups
as well.
>For reference, here is Option I (subject to change by this discussion):
> rec.radio.amateur.misc (existing)
> rec.radio.amateur.policy (existing)
> rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc (existing as r.r.a.packet)
> rec.radio.amateur.digital.tcp-ip
> rec.radio.amateur.operating
> rec.radio.amateur.products
> rec.radio.amateur.instruction
> rec.radio.amateur.construction
> rec.radio.amateur.space
> rec.radio.amateur.emerg-services
In general, I think this option (option I) is the way to go. I do
have a couple of specific suggestions I'd like to toss into the
discussion.
r.r.a.instruction: I'd like to see this broadened to include all kinds
of beginner-oriented discussion, not just licensing issues. One of
the questions I've asked myself in looking at this list of newsgroups
is, "if I were a newbie wanting to ask a question, where would I post
it?" I don't think the answer is clear given the above list of
groups. Therefore, I propose the following:
Change r.r.a.instruction
to r.r.a.beginner
with the charter: Discussion of questions and answers (both technical
and nontechnical) from newcomers to amateur radio, licensing procedures
and schedules, instruction, and educational uses of amateur radio.
[This includes all topics in the original proposed charter for
r.r.a.instruction.]
Since those who want to discuss instructional material are usually
either those asking for or those providing beginner's info, this seems
like a logical coupling of needs.
r.r.a.digital: Wouldn't r.r.a.datacomm (or r.r.a.dcom?) be better? I
mean, "digital" sounds like it refers to CMOS keyer circuitry.
Or maybe it only clangs in *my* ear.
r.r.a.construction: I think some of the support for option II comes
about because there doesn't seem to be a place for wide-ranging
technical discussions. I think the charter of r.r.a.construction
allows for such discussion, but again, the *name* of the group
doesn't do a good job of indicating that. After all, I might very
well want to discuss how an electromagnetic wave forms on an
antenna without having the least intention of constructing one
(antenna, that is). The rra-reorg mail discussion, and some of
the subsequest discussion here, seemed to vacilate between a
sweeping "everything is technical" approach and a divide-into-
500-little-groups approach to technical discussion. *I* think a
general tech group can stand with the other proposed groups. Granting
that some of the other groups (products, beginners [if accepted],
space) have large technical components, that isn't the primary
point of any of those groups. We need a group that does focus on
technical discussions for their own sake. And since I can think
of no better name, I propose:
Change r.r.a.construction
to r.r.a.technical
with the charter: Discussion of amateur radio technical matters
not covered elsewhere, including design, construction and testing
of amateur radio and related equipment as well as radio phenomena.
I think these proposed changes would be improvements, but I could
swallow hard and support option I as it stands if that's what shows
up in a CFV.
-------
Jon Bloom, KE3Z | jbl...@arrl.org
American Radio Relay League | Justice is being allowed to do whatever
225 Main St. | I like. Injustice is whatever prevents
Newington, CT 06111 | my doing so. -- Samuel Johnson
Dr. Joseph M Zawodny
deletions to save BW)
> ...
> Change r.r.a.instruction
> to r.r.a.beginner
> ...
>r.r.a.digital: Wouldn't r.r.a.datacomm (or r.r.a.dcom?) be better? I
> mean, "digital" sounds like it refers to CMOS keyer circuitry.
> Or maybe it only clangs in *my* ear.
> Change r.r.a.construction
> to r.r.a.technical
> ...
>Jon Bloom, KE3Z | jbl...@arrl.org
Way to go Jon! This is exactly how I feel we should do it. I hope others
read your posting and comment on this.
--
Joseph M. Zawodny (KO4LW) NASA Langley Research Center
Internet: zaw...@arbd0.larc.nasa.gov MS-475, Hampton VA, 23681-0001
Packet: ko...@wb0tax.va.usa
John G. Thompson
[...]
>r.r.a.instruction: I'd like to see this broadened to include all kinds
> of beginner-oriented discussion, not just licensing issues. One of
> the questions I've asked myself in looking at this list of newsgroups
> is, "if I were a newbie wanting to ask a question, where would I post
> it?" I don't think the answer is clear given the above list of
> groups. Therefore, I propose the following:
> Change r.r.a.instruction
> to r.r.a.beginner
> with the charter: Discussion of questions and answers (both technical
> and nontechnical) from newcomers to amateur radio, licensing procedures
> and schedules, instruction, and educational uses of amateur radio.
> [This includes all topics in the original proposed charter for
> r.r.a.instruction.]
Except that r.r.a.beginner doesn't broaden the group it narrows the
group. What about discussions of upgrading your current license?
Where does that discussion go? If anything it sound like the charter
needs to be expanded to be more specific about the things to be discussed.
r.r.a.instruction charter: Discussion of instruction and educational
materials and methods, examination and licensing procedures for new and
existing hams. Schedules of time, locations and costs for examinations
and mean time to license arrival. Location and composition of question
pools for the exam elements.
Another possible name for the news group could be r.r.a.education.
As names go this might better target the idea of the group. Any takers?
> Since those who want to discuss instructional material are usually
> either those asking for or those providing beginner's info, this seems
> like a logical coupling of needs.
The logicial place to begin is with the group charter, the FAQ and the
introduction to the r.r.a heirarchy postings. The things that a newcomer
to the group (but not necessarily netnews) would look for. If you think
it is a problem for newcomers to find the information then support a weekly
posting of the introductory postings.
[...]
>r.r.a.construction: I think some of the support for option II comes
> about because there doesn't seem to be a place for wide-ranging
> technical discussions. I think the charter of r.r.a.construction
> allows for such discussion, but again, the *name* of the group
> doesn't do a good job of indicating that.
What about the charter for r.r.a.misc? That allows for wide ranging
technical discussions. What is the problem with using r.r.a.misc?
[...]
JGT
--
John G. Thompson Amdahl Corporation jg...@uts.amdahl.com
KD6KID P.O. Box 3470 MS 340 {sun,uunet}!amdahl!jgt10
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 1-408-737-5708
Go ahead, flame me...I've got heavy duty surge protectors.
[The opinions expressed above are mine, solely, and do not ]
[necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Amdahl Corp. ]
Jon Bloom
I have no problem with that, except that it still doesn't provide a
place specifically for beginners, which I think is needed. Beginners
tend to find it difficult to categorize their questions. That's one
reason why you see so many beginners' packet questions in r.r.a.misc,
for example. If we want to provide an environment friendly to the
beginner--and I think we do--we can best do so by giving them a place
to read and post that specifically addresses their questions about
all of ham radio, not just licensing. And in any case, I think most
of the licensing discussion is about beginner licensing anyway. If
that discussion takes place in a beginner's group, what little is
left can easily be handled in r.r.a.misc.
>Another possible name for the news group could be r.r.a.education.
>As names go this might better target the idea of the group. Any takers?
It doesn't target the group *I* want to have.
>> Since those who want to discuss instructional material are usually
>> either those asking for or those providing beginner's info, this seems
>> like a logical coupling of needs.
>
>The logicial place to begin is with the group charter, the FAQ and the
>introduction to the r.r.a heirarchy postings. The things that a newcomer
>to the group (but not necessarily netnews) would look for. If you think
>it is a problem for newcomers to find the information then support a weekly
>posting of the introductory postings.
I'm talking about chartering a group that gets beginners together with
the folks who provide them with answers and support. By "beginners"
I mean newcomers to ham radio. They may or may not be newcomers to
netnews. If we name such a group r.r.a.beginners, I suggest we won't
have to rely on periodic postings to lead beginners to the appropriate
starting point. It's perfectly clear from reading not just the r.r.a
hierarchy but others as well that FAQ and other periodic postings have
only limited success in directing people to the right places. So what's
wrong with establishing groups and picking group names that *do* provide
direction if the resulting group can stand on its own with respect to
traffic volume?
>[...]
>
>>r.r.a.construction: I think some of the support for option II comes
>> about because there doesn't seem to be a place for wide-ranging
>> technical discussions. I think the charter of r.r.a.construction
>> allows for such discussion, but again, the *name* of the group
>> doesn't do a good job of indicating that.
>
>What about the charter for r.r.a.misc? That allows for wide ranging
>technical discussions. What is the problem with using r.r.a.misc?
Simply that r.r.a.misc is too broad-brush. Discussion areas that have
significant traffic volume should be in a unique newsgroup. That best
serves both those who want to read about that subject and those who
don't. I question whether construction by itself will support enough
traffic. And at the same time, I think general technical discussion,
if it's placed in r.r.a.misc, will have a large enough volume to annoy
the r.r.a.misc readers who aren't interested while not being a high
enough percentage of the total r.r.a.misc to allow the techies to
efficiently filter the technical postings from the other r.r.a.misc
stuff. So, since construction is a subset of the subject of technical
matters, I think they should go together in a newsgroup.
Ian Kluft
>I have no problem with that, except that it still doesn't provide a
>place specifically for beginners, which I think is needed. Beginners
>I'm talking about chartering a group that gets beginners together with
I think I understand your point now - you want to establish something that is,
by its name, a magnet for new users. For that purpose, I can see why you
don't like "education". The new rec.aviation hierarchy has
rec.aviation.student but that works better there than here because they use
the term "student pilot" for their trainees.
But I'm not sure that r.r.a.instruction fails to function as a new-user magnet
and imply that new users can ask questions there.
Everyone - with this clarification of what Jon is suggesting, what do you
think? Does r.r.a.instruction sufficiently imply that new users should go
there or is r.r.a.beginner the only way to accomplish this? Help with more
perceptions here can make this a better proposal.
[...on the suggestion of renaming r.r.a.construction to r.r.a.technical...]
>I question whether construction by itself will support enough
>traffic. And at the same time, I think general technical discussion,
>if it's placed in r.r.a.misc, will have a large enough volume to annoy
>the r.r.a.misc readers who aren't interested while not being a high
>enough percentage of the total r.r.a.misc to allow the techies to
>efficiently filter the technical postings from the other r.r.a.misc
>stuff. So, since construction is a subset of the subject of technical
>matters, I think they should go together in a newsgroup.
Almost everything in amateur radio is a subset of technical discussions.
The need for this doesn't seem as clear. I agree with the earlier point that
newbies have trouble focusing their questions. So r.r.a.beginner may be a
good place for unfocused discussion. But we're not trying to make more
unfocused discussion groups.
Whether they're called r.r.a.homebrew/construction, r.r.a.equipment/products
or r.r.a.instruction/beginner, their names imply both their charters and their
differences from the others. r.r.a.technical does not appear to differentiate
itself from r.r.a.misc because they're both grab-bags in a technical subject.
The solution isn't ideal but the most logical place to put the leftovers from
these proposals seems to me to be r.r.a.misc. If our efforts succeed, that
won't be such a bad place any more anyway.
[My opinion aside... I'm watching the discussion for others' reactions. This
is still listed as an open issue.]
--
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]
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> >What about the charter for r.r.a.misc? That allows for wide ranging
> >technical discussions. What is the problem with using r.r.a.misc?
>
> Simply that r.r.a.misc is too broad-brush. Discussion areas that have
> significant traffic volume should be in a unique newsgroup. That best
> serves both those who want to read about that subject and those who
> don't. I question whether construction by itself will support enough
> traffic. And at the same time, I think general technical discussion,
> if it's placed in r.r.a.misc, will have a large enough volume to annoy
> the r.r.a.misc readers who aren't interested while not being a high
> enough percentage of the total r.r.a.misc to allow the techies to
> efficiently filter the technical postings from the other r.r.a.misc
> stuff. So, since construction is a subset of the subject of technical
> matters, I think they should go together in a newsgroup.
> -------
I agree with Jon. However the final proposal ends up, it should include
r.r.a.tech. If construction gets to be a big enough sub-group in later
years we can revisit it, but I'd like to see construction included in
tech.
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
>jbl...@arrl.org (Jon Bloom) writes:
>>I have no problem with that, except that it still doesn't provide a
>>place specifically for beginners, which I think is needed. Beginners
>>tend to find it difficult to categorize their questions. [...]
>>I'm talking about chartering a group that gets beginners together with
>>the folks who provide them with answers and support. [...]
>I think I understand your point now - you want to establish something that is,
>by its name, a magnet for new users. For that purpose, I can see why you
>don't like "education". The new rec.aviation hierarchy has
>rec.aviation.student but that works better there than here because they use
>the term "student pilot" for their trainees.
>But I'm not sure that r.r.a.instruction fails to function as a new-user magnet
>and imply that new users can ask questions there.
>Everyone - with this clarification of what Jon is suggesting, what do you
>think? Does r.r.a.instruction sufficiently imply that new users should go
>there or is r.r.a.beginner the only way to accomplish this? Help with more
>perceptions here can make this a better proposal.
I really wonder if we can successfully create such a forum for
newcomers. The news.newusers.questions ghetto sticks out in my mind as
an example of wasted space where the same questions are asked over and
over. There is a finite, and predictable, amount of information to get
across to novices, and duplicating information that can be found in
FAQ's and FTP archives may not be desirable.
Usenet just may not be the best forum for tutoring beginners. Beginning-
level instruction and guidance may be best offered at the local,
one-on-one level, or privately via E-mail (hence my efforts with the
Elmers List). Remember also, that you need friendly and motivated
people to continually answer the same questions over and over and
provide polite mentoring. I suspect that the amount of noise in such a
proposed forum will cause the knowledgeable readers to quickly tune it
out and turn it into a case of "the blind leading the blind."
I like r.r.a.instruction because, as I noted on the rra-reorg mailing list
before the RFD, it implies ongoing instruction for hams of all expertise
levels. (A newsgroup like rec.radio.amateur.beginner reminds me of that
scene out of Animal House where the undesirable pledges at a snobby
fraternity's rush party are not-so-subtly nudged over to a "loser's
corner" :-). Count me as voting no for exclusive ghettos for newbies, and
yes for inclusive forums accommodating a wide range of expertise levels.
Put me down also as taking a liking to rec.radio.amateur.dcom.*
over .digital.*, as it's consistent with comp.dcom.*. However, I'm
favorably disposed to either. Any other opinions either way?
73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
Kevin Sanders
>
>I really wonder if we can successfully create such a forum for
>newcomers. The news.newusers.questions ghetto sticks out in my mind as
>an example of wasted space where the same questions are asked over and
>over. There is a finite, and predictable, amount of information to get
>across to novices, and duplicating information that can be found in
>FAQ's and FTP archives may not be desirable.
>
I agree with this; I don't think there are many folks in the r.r.a.m. group
who are magnanimous enough to read the beginner group and answer the same
questions over and over and over again (except those who specifically enrolled
themselves in the elmers list); then the hapless beginner would be forced to
post to r.r.a.m., inviting flames. No, I think that beginner questions are
best addressed in the FAQ as we and most other groups do now, and I will
vote "no" for a r.r.a.beginner group.
>
>Put me down also as taking a liking to rec.radio.amateur.dcom.*
>over .digital.*, as it's consistent with comp.dcom.*. However, I'm
>favorably disposed to either. Any other opinions either way?
>
>73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
>
>psch...@unomaha.edu
>
I'm not familiar with the comp.dcom.* hierarchy, and just looking at the
nonword "dcom" doesn't give me a feel for what this group would be about.
I prefer "digital", as this word has a definite meaning and is in fact
a broader topic, encompassing both digital communications modes and things
that are not so obviously communication, i.e., packet telemetry or other
digital control/status signals.
--
Kevin Sanders, KN6FQ NCR Torrey Pines
kevin....@torreypinesca.ncr.com (619) 597-3602
kevin%bea...@cyber.net