RFD
M. Squicciarini
This may sound flippant but why not change
rec.radio.amateur.misc
to
rec.radio.amateur.flame
73 -- marty -- nr3z
Ian Kluft
Is that in favor of the reorganization currently under discussion?
Now that the discussion on the RFD is slowing down I'm going to go through
the copies of everyone's articles and try tallying support, opposition, and
suggestions. A 2nd RFD may go out soon, too. I'm waiting for after April
1st, for obvious reasons, and I'll need to coordinate it with the rra-reorg
mail list.
Let me remind everyone that if you are in support of the split then you need
to show your support by posting it in news.groups. This RFD can fail to move
on to the voting phase if insufficient support is found in the discussion. At
this point, I don't know the numbers yet but both sides have been vocal and
many suggestions for changes have been posted.
--
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]
Randy Cole
It strikes me as nit-picky. The mind boggles at the number of possible
crossposts which would result. If we want a general discussion group
with a large, varied audience we're just going to have to live with
some jerks, flamers, and un-ending topics. It's a small price to pay.
Randy Cole
KN6W
Ian Kluft
Such a pessimistic view of the world... Things can work much better than
that. In rec.aviation.*, which was reorganized last Summer, my news spool
shows 13 newsgroups with 336 files (5-day retention.) Of those, 41 are
cross-posted between more than one rec.aviation subgroup. Most of those seem
to be from an attempt to find the most appropriate groups for the topic. Only
26 of those even include rec.aviation.misc in the cross-posting.
That sure doesn't seem like an epidemic of cross-posting. Considering that
rec.aviation before its reorg was very much like rec.radio.amateur.misc today
(including traffic volume and attached mail lists) I really don't think it's
going to be a problem.
So, if we *do* split rec.radio.amateur, we'll have several other groups with
better signal-to-noise ratios, making a much more enjoyable environment for
Hams, considers what varied interests we tend to have.
It CAN work... just look at where it has worked.
Alan Larson
I would suggest rather strongly against the re-organization.
We don't need more cross posting, and more complications for
gatewaying to info-hams (or whatever it is nowdays).
We do need some more sanity in using the list, perhaps, but
the finer divisions just provide more places to miss the article
that would have been interesting, if we had happened across it.
Alan
wa6azp
Gary Coffman
>That sure doesn't seem like an epidemic of cross-posting. Considering that
>rec.aviation before its reorg was very much like rec.radio.amateur.misc today
>(including traffic volume and attached mail lists) I really don't think it's
>going to be a problem.
>
>So, if we *do* split rec.radio.amateur, we'll have several other groups with
>better signal-to-noise ratios, making a much more enjoyable environment for
>Hams, considers what varied interests we tend to have.
My contention, based on my own observations, is that while there are
certainly people in amateur radio with narrow focus, leading to varied
interests in the community, by far the majority of amateurs *individually*
have many varied interests. That means they will cross the new group
lines regularly, often in the *same* posting, or thread. Thus split
groups become less useful to them unless they resort to extensive
crossposting to encompass the various viewpoints they are addressing.
That's not a terrible handicap to those with direct Usenet access and
proper threaded readers, nn allows merging of multiple groups into
a phantom supergroup for example, but it plays hell with the Email
users. They have to choose which mail list to join, if indeed multiple
mail lists are created. If they join all the lists, then crossposts
become a volume issue because they are mailed separate copies in each
group. If Brian doesn't create new mail lists, then those people are
cut off from areas of discussion.
Someone suggested crossposting everything to misc. That might be a
workable way to include the mail list users, but then the group
split just becomes a redundant way of managing threads with less
individual control than offered by standard threaded readers. If
you add in the general Usenet tendency to never edit newsgroup
lines when the topic shifts, then even those who want blinders
placed on them from outside by an imposed group structure won't be
pleased as off topic posts fill their exclusive clubs.
I think the ham community is sufficiently different from the aviation
community that what works reasonably well there doesn't necessarily
apply here. If improved signal to noise level is what's wanted, I
think only moderated groups can make it happen. One man's signal
is often another man's noise. Without someone ruling with an iron
hand, the wheat and chaff won't land in the right piles.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
The QRPer
Hear! Hear!
Please count me among the adamantly opposed as well. The reason
given for the proposed reorganization was that some people found
it impossible to follow the various threads on this newsgroup
because of the volume of traffic. I don't know how this works
for people on mailing lists, but those of us with reasonably
modern newsreaders have no trouble following exactly what we
want to follow. Please don't subject us to this monstrosity
just because either your news reader or your mail reader doesn't
give you the chance to read only what you want.
Seems to me you're trying to fix the wrong thing.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Schreibmaier K2PH | UUCP: ...!att!mtdcr!k2ph
AT&T Bell Laboratories | Internet: k2...@mtdcr.att.com
Middletown, N.J. 07748 | ICBM: 40o21'N, 74o8'W
Jay Maynard
>I don't know how this works
>for people on mailing lists, but those of us with reasonably
>modern newsreaders have no trouble following exactly what we
>want to follow. Please don't subject us to this monstrosity
>just because either your news reader or your mail reader doesn't
>give you the chance to read only what you want.
That's right, you don't. The folks on the mailing list get N digest per day,
with all the messages strung together. There's not enough information there to
read threads.
What you're really saying is, "Read it by mail? Not running Unix? Can't
install a 'modern' newsreader? Tough! Live with it!"
All that does is run people off.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"I can understand if it just won't work but I think locking up my system
to tell me this is a little excessive." -- Steve Luzynski
Gary Coffman
>In article <1993Apr2.1...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> k2...@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (The QRPer) writes:
>>I don't know how this works
>>for people on mailing lists, but those of us with reasonably
>>modern newsreaders have no trouble following exactly what we
>>want to follow. Please don't subject us to this monstrosity
>>just because either your news reader or your mail reader doesn't
>>give you the chance to read only what you want.
>
>That's right, you don't. The folks on the mailing list get N digest per day,
>with all the messages strung together. There's not enough information there to
>read threads.
That's not true, the subject and attribution lines remain intact. And
if that doesn't satisfy you, it's a one liner to put a unique separater
between messages in the digest.
>What you're really saying is, "Read it by mail? Not running Unix? Can't
>install a 'modern' newsreader? Tough! Live with it!"
What he's saying, in fact what he said but you edited it out, is that
we should fix the *problem*, not create an unnecessary handicap to those
who presently don't have that problem. The best way to fix the *problem*
is to encourage people on the mail lists to use de-digestifying software
to allow them to burst the mailings back into readable threads. At least
one such piece of software exists in the DOS world, in *source* no less,
as part of the Japanese packet news system. Writing one whole cloth is
a trivial exercise in awk, pearl, or Snobol IV, and versions of those
are available for non-unix systems. I even had Spitbol running on a
CP/M machine 14 years ago. Manipulating text strings isn't rocket science,
and it's certainly easier than social engineering.
Jay Maynard
>That's not true, the subject and attribution lines remain intact. And
>if that doesn't satisfy you, it's a one liner to put a unique separater
>between messages in the digest.
So does that mean you can feed those articles to trn or another "modern"
newsreader, much less having that functionality in a mail reader that normally
has no need for such?
>What he's saying, in fact what he said but you edited it out, is that
>we should fix the *problem*, not create an unnecessary handicap to those
>who presently don't have that problem. The best way to fix the *problem*
>is to encourage people on the mail lists to use de-digestifying software
>to allow them to burst the mailings back into readable threads.
If they can find, acquire, install, and get such things running.
Are you volunteering?
> At least
>one such piece of software exists in the DOS world, in *source* no less,
>as part of the Japanese packet news system. Writing one whole cloth is
>a trivial exercise in awk, pearl, or Snobol IV, and versions of those
>are available for non-unix systems. I even had Spitbol running on a
>CP/M machine 14 years ago. Manipulating text strings isn't rocket science,
>and it's certainly easier than social engineering.
Well? Get cracking!
Oh, you mean that they should install it themselves. That presupposes that
they *can*.
It's been proven time and time again that splits work, overall. Th people
complaining aren't going to be satisfied with your glib "let 'em eat cake"
answer.
Scott Turner
>Such a pessimistic view of the world... Things can work much better than
>that. In rec.aviation.*, which was reorganized last Summer, my news spool
>shows 13 newsgroups with 336 files (5-day retention.) Of those, 41 are
>cross-posted between more than one rec.aviation subgroup. Most of those seem
>to be from an attempt to find the most appropriate groups for the topic. Only
>26 of those even include rec.aviation.misc in the cross-posting.
ACCHH! PTUI!! Put me down as adamantly apposed!!!
As a long time rec.aviation participant, allow me to present a slightly
different viewpoint from Ian's. I dislike much of the rec.aviation
hierarchy!
A few of the new groups work, and don't generate copious xposts. These
are the groups that are *clearly distinct* and stand on their own, such
as .military, .soaring, .homebuilt and .simulators. The rest
(.piloting, .owning, .products, .answers, .student, .stories, and .misc)
represent xposting hell. I appreciate the statistics Ian presents, but
xposting tends to ebb and flow in the hierarchy. If you factor out the
few well divided groups, the percentage would rise appreciably. I've
seen times when *most* of what was posted in the .piloting, .owning, .ifr,
.student, .products, .stories and .misc groups was xposted to at least
one other group.
>That sure doesn't seem like an epidemic of cross-posting. Considering that
>rec.aviation before its reorg was very much like rec.radio.amateur.misc today
>(including traffic volume and attached mail lists) I really don't think it's
>going to be a problem.
That assumes appropriate sub-groups. To my mind, the subgroupings
offered are no more distinct than the less succesfully split
rec.aviation groups.
>So, if we *do* split rec.radio.amateur, we'll have several other groups with
>better signal-to-noise ratios, making a much more enjoyable environment for
>Hams, considers what varied interests we tend to have.
>It CAN work... just look at where it has worked.
Sorry Ian. I'm truly not trying to be contrary, but I believe you're
operating from a false premise. I respectfully disagree.
Scott Turner N0VRF sc...@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Turbo Arrow N2134N "Baby"
Mark G. Salyzyn
> We don't need more cross posting, and more complications for
>gatewaying to info-hams (or whatever it is nowdays).
History has shown in other groups we won't have a problem with cross
postings.
> We do need some more sanity in using the list, perhaps, but
>the finer divisions just provide more places to miss the article
>that would have been interesting, if we had happened across it.
The coarse divisions are causing people to throw away 250 articles/day,
throwing the baby out with the bath water. A newby with time may have
the luxury of weeding through all the articles ... but I have seen
cases of newbies throwing up their hands and walking way from the info-hams
mess. I see a couple of request, because I moderate the rec.radio.info
newsgroup, from people asking me (Mr radio.info, HAH! :-) how to sign off the
info-hams list (and admitedly, the radio-info list too ...) because it bombs
their mailbox.
I repeat myself, Ciao -- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
>My contention, based on my own observations, is that while there are
>certainly people in amateur radio with narrow focus, leading to varied
>interests in the community, by far the majority of amateurs *individually*
>have many varied interests.
This is true, but when I need packet information, I go to the appropriate
news group. The hope was that net.wisdom would find groups that functioned
as well as *.packet does.
>They have to choose which mail list to join, if indeed multiple mail lists
>are created.
No different than the overload that occurs to a new user presented with
NetNews and going *mad* hitting `U' to unsubscribe to all the groups
he doesn't want. The system is a bit more sluggish for a list server user
than a news user.
>If they join all the lists, then crossposts become a volume issue because
>they are mailed separate copies in each group.
Only a problem due to the current implementation of the lists, sure, the
listserver users are a victim of this, but hopes are that things will
adjust to meet the requirements. I have seen listservers popping up
that DO allow exacting control over what they receive, control over
parent groups etc.
>If Brian doesn't create new mail lists, then those people are
>cut off from areas of discussion.
I would think that the least Brian would do would be to create a listserver
that took the complete glom of articles in the groups and put them on
one listserver address, even with cross-posting (but not multiple posting),
the listserver users would see no difference.
Of course, he could decide to pack his bags too ... (quivering in his space
boots :-)
>If improved signal to noise level is what's wanted, I
>think only moderated groups can make it happen.
Yes and no. You can not imagine the momentum and training required to
convince people to post to moderated groups. A single mistake, and some
flea. Sure, the signal to noise ratio is better, but the signal may
drop off a couple of dB as well ... < plea for people to post informative
articles associated with radio to rec.radio.info deleted as it may cause
people stomache to turn watching me grovel :-) >
>Without someone ruling with an iron
>hand, the wheat and chaff won't land in the right piles.
I could point out that the Ham Community is used to self policing (albeit,
much of it is upon deaf ears once those same Hams are all placed on
USENET :-). Instead of using moderation, why not use police instead, I
am sure there are a couple of people out there that would love the
oportunity to be self important :-)
Ciao -- Mark
Mark G. Salyzyn
>Are there really that many more articles in the mailing list?!?
I am not on the mailing list, despite the fact that I have voiced sympathy
for them ... they get a significant cut on the number of articles due to
bulletin filtering.
>The rec.radio.amateur.misc newsgroup gets less than 60 per day.
My current average is closer to 100/day, In February, I had about 50/day.
I have had days with 250 (this is what I refered to, when I stated
throwing the baby out with the bath water, I should have been clearer where I
got the number). If I had enough history around to calculate seasonal
adjustments, I'd be tickled. So you have to live with my guess that by the
time 1993 is ended, I expect to see perhaps 200/day as an average, the peaks
will *kill* you ...
I also am voting for the ligitimization of several mailing lists into a
new news group (Read: .tcp-ip) that are running at close to the same
level of activity as the *.misc group (when they are combined).
If there is a split, you will be guaranteed that the volume will increase
because of the new breathing room, I'd hazard a guess that my prediction for
volume for *.misc will be dwarfed by the combined volume in the split groups!
>It's pretty easy to follow that amount of load with a decent newsreader.
On a fast machine perhaps, my home machine would make your skin crawl (V7
Unix, 68K at 10MHz) reading the news. `nn' suffers trying to read through the
news directory as I have 2900 articles in the *.misc spool just for the past
month. I have not complained, but there have been a couple of postings
complaining about the volume in *.misc, enough to convince me that we have a
problem looming (and thus my reason for the support of the split, although I
differ on the lines that should be split ;-).
< Please vote for .tech (or a group that embodies .equipment/.homebrew/...) >
Ciao -- Mark