RFD: rec.radio.amateur reorganization [discussion summary 3/31]
Ian Kluft
there appears to be support for a reorganization of rec.radio.amateur. I've
taken a tally, though I want to caution everyone that THESE ARE NOT VOTES
because voting won't occur unless the discussion phase shows enough support
to allow us to proceed to a vote.
Tally so far: 13 in favor, 7 opposed, 8 unclear or undecided
Several of the "in favor" messages included modifications to the RFD which may
or may not be conditional. So this number represents 13 in favor of a split
but not necessarily for the exact proposal in the RFD.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW IS BRING TOGETHER THE SUGGESTIONS WE HAVE INTO A
NEW PROPOSAL WHICH CAN BECOME THE "CALL FOR VOTES". IF YOU SUPPORT A SPLIT
OF REC.RADIO.AMATEUR, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THIS IS A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS -
LET'S TRY TO MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT CAN PASS A VOTE ON THE NEWSGROUP AND WORK
IN PRACTICE. That will mean that probably no one will get exactly what they
want. We need to be patient with the fact that other people have input too.
Of the suggestions made for changes, I would like to handle these the same
was we did on the rra-reorg mail list. A suggestion needs to appear more
than once (by different people) and outnumber the opposing opinions in order
to make it in.
Suggestions which more than one person suggested were as follows (opposition
is unknown so these are still open for discussion):
* r.r.a.products should be renamed r.r.a.equipment
- this was a common theme among a few otherwise-dissimilar variations
* r.r.a.space should be created whether the r.r.a.tech option is chosen or not
If there is no opposition, these will become part of the evolving proposal.
Other notes:
* A common concern was that the mail lists will need to match the newsgroups
in order for this to work.
* The question of which is supported more between the main set of newsgroups
and the r.r.a.tech option is just as unclear as it was in the rra-reorg
mail list. More discussion is needed - we definitely need to resolve this.
* a couple responses questioned the r.r.a.digital subhierarchy or whether
the groups would be big enough to support a newsgroup of their own.
Since this part of the proposal was brought up by r.r.a.packet users and
unopposed by others from that group, more comments are needed, especially
from r.r.a.packet.
Let the discussion continue... I'll try to put together a picture of what
looks like it can pass a vote as people say what they can support.
For reference - recap of RFD proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, satellites, theory,
examinations, video
---
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]
--
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]
John G. Thompson
[... status and stuff deleted ...]
I feel the above breakdown is too fine.
>Summary of RFD proposed newsgroups (Option II - "the .tech option")
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>(all groups unmoderated)
>Newsgroup name description
>-------------- -------------------------------
[...]
>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, satellites, theory,
> examinations, video
I like the above breakdown. Although I wonder if there might be some
cross over on the examination issues (as there might be on a lot of
things for that matter).
And for that matter (just for good measure) add a
rec.radio.amateur.flame
Since we have issue that count as flame wars by any definition I've
seen, let acknowledge them and send them to their own pergatory.
(maybe that should be rec.radio.amatuer.static or rec.radio.static :)
A side issue that may help the implementation of a news group
reorg. Part of the problem may be lack of knowledge of the
definition of the groups. I would suggest a weekly 'reminder'
of the group definitions.
--
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. ]
Andy Warner
In article <efB803h...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ikl...@uts.amdahl.com (Ian Kluft) writes:
> [...]
> Tally so far: 13 in favor, 7 opposed, 8 unclear or undecided
> Several of the "in favor" messages included modifications to the RFD which may
> or may not be conditional. So this number represents 13 in favor of a split
> but not necessarily for the exact proposal in the RFD.
So, what you're saying is that a grand total of 28 people have expressed
an opinion and less than half of those were obviously for it ?
> WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW IS BRING TOGETHER THE SUGGESTIONS WE HAVE INTO A
> [...]
Sigh...
[note news.groups deleted 'cos I'm sure they're sick of notes like this].
--
andyw. N0REN/G1XRL
an...@aspen.cray.com Andy Warner, Cray Research, Inc. (612) 683-5835
Ian Kluft
>In article <efB803h...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ikl...@uts.amdahl.com (Ian Kluft) writes:
>> Tally so far: 13 in favor, 7 opposed, 8 unclear or undecided
>> Several of the "in favor" messages included modifications to the RFD which may
>> or may not be conditional. So this number represents 13 in favor of a split
>> but not necessarily for the exact proposal in the RFD.
>So, what you're saying is that a grand total of 28 people have expressed
>an opinion and less than half of those were obviously for it ?
Yes. When you ask people to do something out of the ordinary (like go all
the way to news.groups and post something), don't expect everyone to jump to
it. It just wouldn't be realistic. So the fact that those in favor
outnumbered the opposition like that is plenty of reason to continue with the
effort. It may be even more important that the opposition didn't even
outnumber the undecided's... but that wasn't by a significant margin.
Of those 28 people, many or most of them posted more than one article. I
narrowed it down to the number of people because the article counts alone
were skewed much more in favor of the RFD. People would surely have
complained if that was what I had based the tally on. (Actually, someone
complained anyway. Oh well, it's UseNet - that's what you have to expect. :-)
Hmmm... from the whole RFD experience, I can derive this:
Kluft's Laws of UseNet:
1. You can't please everyone
2. You can't get everything you want
3. You can't even escape unflamed
:-) :-) simleys required here :-) I've been pleasantly surprised that no
one has flamed me yet.
Ed Humphries
option one (too many groups with too many "precise"
definitions to follow).
I'd vote YES to option two as the fewer the number of
groups to cover the area the better (IMHO).
I _still_ believe the two "digital" subgroups belong
on the same logical level as other r.r.a. groups i.e.
r.r.a.tcpip and r.r.a.digi_misc (or some such name).
I do NOT believe we need/want a separate flame group.
Cheers & 73 Ed Humphries N5RCK
Hewlett-Packard NARC Atlanta GA
e...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
Brian Kantor
arguing with those who are already convinced they're doing the right
thing.
Simply put, I think your idea of splitting up the various ham radio groups
into splinter interests is bad. There's no use arguing fine points of
what splits would be appropriate; I believe that "none" is the correct
answer.
And so when you guys get through discussing the angelometrics of it,
and put it up for a vote, I'll do what counts - vote for or against it
at the real tally.
And that's why you don't have my pseudo-vote at this point.
- Brian
Jeffrey D. Angus
> Scanning through the discussion that has been posted on news.groups so far,
> there appears to be support for a reorganization of rec.radio.amateur.
>
> Tally so far: 13 in favor, 7 opposed, 8 unclear or undecided
Let me see, 13 + 7 + 8 = 28 and 13 / 28 = 47% yup, a clear majority.
Now, what percentage of the readship of rec.radio is 13 respondants?
In case I was grouped in the unclear/undecided group,
DO NOT CHANGE REC.RADIO
LEAVE IT ALONE
Thank you. 73 es GM from Jeff
netcom!bongo!jan...@skyld.tele.com "Als ik Kan", Gustav Stickley
US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749-4425 1 (310) 324-6080
Jeffrey D. Angus
following be added as well:
rec.radio.amateur.gay
rec.radio.amateur.pedophile
rec.radio.amateur.bondage
rec.radio.amateur.abuse
rec.radio.amateur.democrat
rec.radio.amateur.republican.recovering
rec.radio.amateur.geezer
rec.radio.amateur.minorities
rec.radio.amateur.smoking
rec.radio.amateur.nonsmoking
rec.radio.amateur.charred.beyond.recognition
I mean, what the hell, let's be fair and include everyone in this!
Ben Coleman
> Yes. When you ask people to do something out of the ordinary (like go all
> the way to news.groups and post something), don't expect everyone to jump to
> it.
Especially when some of us don't get news.groups.
Ben
+---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Ben Coleman NJ8J | "All that is not eternal is |
| Packet: NJ8J@W4QO.#EAL.#ATL.GA.USA.NA | eternally irrelevant." |
| Internet: b...@nj8j.atl.ga.us | |
| or b...@nj8j.blackwlf.mese.com | C. S. Lewis |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jim Graham
(Ed Humphries) writes:
>For what it is worth, if we were voting, I'd say NO to
>option one (too many groups with too many "precise"
>definitions to follow).
>
>I'd vote YES to option two as the fewer the number of
>groups to cover the area the better (IMHO).
I'd have to go along with the above.... the first list (wasn't it
something like 50 subgroups? <grin>) is a bit much.... we do need
a split, but the 2nd list seemed much better to me. IMHO, of course.
key reasons why I'd like to see a split:
1) better organization of ideas/topics (I don't buy the argument that
everything will end up being cross-posted to every group...unless
people intentionally do that just to prove their point that it
would happen. it might happen some, but not to the extent that
people fear.)
2) let's face it, not everyone is interested in every topic that's
discussed. I'm interested more in topics like [any technical
topic, especially digital modes and antenna design], anything
else relating to packet, AMTOR, PacTOR, etc., satellite stuff
(still trying...on a zero budget, no less), bulletins, and so
on, but frankly don't give a rat's *ss about code vs no-code, cw
requirements, etc..... some sites do have to pay for connect time,
LD charges, etc., and any reduction in traffic means $$$. other
sites have limited disk space, too. I'd probably get most (and maybe
all, depending on the signal/noise ratio of each) of the groups, but
the topics I'm less interested in would be expired much, much faster
than the rest.
many people will say that if you have a threaded news reader, it doesn't
make any difference. well, this is true if you don't care about the
costs associated with getting the articles, and if you don't have to worry
about the space to store them. but having trn doesn't do much for either
of these issues (feel free to prove me wrong by explaining how I can use
trn, or C News, to set different expire times for articles within the same
group based on the subject, but not necessarily the subject line, of the
article, as well as not receiving them in my feed).
>I do NOT believe we need/want a separate flame group.
sure we do. it'd be the place to put all of the code vs no-code flame
wars (e.g., the recent Real NoCodes bull), etc..... we could all just
not subscribe to it. :-) seriously, that kind of crap is the main
reason why I might one day drop rec.radio.amateur.misc, and just keep
the .packet, and .info (and maybe .policy) subgroups (I don't have
rra.info right now...but I'd get it if I nuked rra.misc).
type at y'all later.....
--jim
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h> 73 DE N5IAL (/4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNET: j...@n5ial.mythical.com | j.gr...@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
AMATEUR RADIO: n5ial@w4zbb (Ft. Walton Beach, FL) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).
Harris Boldt Edelman
is support for the proposed reorganization of rec.radio.amateur, then
presents a tally whose numbers show that a majority of those participating
in the discussion did not favor the proposal. This is invidious.
I do not support any reorganization of rec.radio.amateur at this time.
Proposals made to date offer movement without meaningful progress. The
substantive underlying problem is one of aggregate news volume, and while
there are effective solutions to that, they are untenable.
-Harris KB6OWB
Ian Kluft
>Ian Kluft, in <efB803h...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, states that there
>is support for the proposed reorganization of rec.radio.amateur, then
>presents a tally whose numbers show that a majority of those participating
>in the discussion did not favor the proposal. This is invidious.
When you take out the undecided or unclear (unclear == one-liners not
expressing any opinion) comments, it's 2-to-1 in favor of the split.
If you're counting the undecided posts, I had to include them only so no
one would say I was omitting anything. They obviously cannot be counted as
for or against.
Mark G. Salyzyn
>Or there are people who, like myself, don't believe in wasting energy
>arguing with those who are already convinced they're doing the right
>thing.
Many of us in the group kept on pinching ourselves to make sure we
*realy* thought a split would do some good ... Please give reasons, we
(refering to the proponents of the split) are reasonable individuals.
>And so when you guys get through discussing the angelometrics of it,
>and put it up for a vote, I'll do what counts - vote for or against it
>at the real tally.
But, more importantly (at least to half of the net.population in
rec.radio.amateur.misc), if a vote goes towards yes, is the listserver
you administer going to be sluggish in responding to the changing world?
Are there technical (or time related) difficulties that you see? These
are all questions that we asked, and have got limited hints that you
`would see when the time comes'.
Pussyfoot, Ciao, 73 de VE6MGS/Mark -sk-
Scott Turner
>I don't believe that we have to take the behaviour of broken software
>into account when determining the policies of the network. From this
>persons description of the process, POW doesn't obey the standard
>paradigms of Usenet software, and so its behaviour does not count.
And by extensions its users don't count? C'mon. What's required here
is not an indictment of other's software, systems, or limitations, but a
reasoned discussion of what users of these groups desire and require.
Check the postings on this topic. It may not be ideal, and it may not
be what you'd like for it to be, but the fact is that many of us have
no choice but to use systems that do not deal gracefully with
xposting.
What matters are the opinions of the users, not how good or bad the
software choices available to them are.
Scott Turner N0VRF sc...@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division
Scott Turner
>jan...@skyld.tele.com (Jeffrey D. Angus) writes:
>> Don't do it. The more groups you create, the more groups get cross-posted
>> because people are either a) afraid their message won't be read or b) they
>> don't understand how to use thier newsgroup software.
>You are calling us idiots you know, and if not directed at *us*, what
>about people like my wife (completely computer illiterate) who understands
>these concepts and can hit the '?' key when she doesn't ...
Whoa there big fella! :-) Nobody called you or your wife or any of the
rest of us idiots. His statement is fundamentally correct. I work with
educated talented people, many of whom don't have a clue as to how our
newsreader works. It's just not high enough on their priority list.
>Now to the point, one can `subscribe' to all the groups, ALL news readers
>are capable of reading articles that are cross posted, in their primary
>group only. You do NOT see articles twice (unless a user has broken
>netiquite and multi-posted) and you can see everything! I do not see
>that you are hurt by this progress!
Whoa there once again! My newreader (a Unix based one no less) makes
seperate copies of xposted articles. I get to see *all* xposted
articles multiple times. I do not have the option of changing readers
for a variety of internal reasons. *Many* others are in similar
situations. The xposting problem is *real* for many of us. Please at
the very least do not minimize real problems as you argue for or against
splitting.
Andy Warner
In article <84ty039...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ikl...@uts.amdahl.com (Ian Kluft) writes:
> h...@loretta.la.ca.us (Harris Boldt Edelman) writes:
> >Ian Kluft, in <efB803h...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, states that there
> >is support for the proposed reorganization of rec.radio.amateur, then
> >presents a tally whose numbers show that a majority of those participating
> >in the discussion did not favor the proposal. This is invidious.
>
> When you take out the undecided or unclear (unclear == one-liners not
> expressing any opinion) comments, it's 2-to-1 in favor of the split.
Or rather, 13 to 7 or 8 in real numbers. I think you'll be amazed at
the number of folks waiting in the wings to vote a resounding NO (of
course, I could be amazed by the number of folks just waiting to vote
YES too..) I am singularly unmoved by the "it worked in rec.autos,
rec.aviation etc arguments - is there a guerilla force that moves from
group to group dreaming up splits ? Where to next ?
FWIW - I also think .info was a total waste of time, Paul Schleck (apologies
if I mis-spelt your name) explained the rationale to me ("kill file hack").
I still can't hack my kill file to make it work, and I suspect there
are many more like me...
20 or 21 replies seems to me like a poor response for a request for
a QSL route, let alone a reorg RFD.
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
>FWIW - I also think .info was a total waste of time, Paul Schleck (apologies
>if I mis-spelt your name) explained the rationale to me ("kill file hack").
>I still can't hack my kill file to make it work, and I suspect there
>are many more like me...
You've spelled it right. What newsreader are you using? The ability to
kill articles cross-posted to a certain group is a hallowed feature on
most major newsreaders.
In rn, according to Leanne Phillips in her rn kill-file FAQ, add a line of
the form:
/Newsgroups:.*[ ,]rec\.radio\.info/h:j
either in News/KILL (if you don't want to see rec.radio.info articles
anywhere) or News/rec/radio/amateur/misc/KILL (if you don't want to see
them in rec.radio.amateur.misc). The latter method means your kill file
will only be consulted during rec.radio.amateur.misc (and hence runs
more efficiently), and will probably work for most people.
In nn, according to Bill Wohler in his nn FAQ, add a line of the form:
rec.radio.info:!s/:^
in .nn/kill (if you don't want to see rec.radio.info articles anywhere),
or put the following lines:
sequence
rec.radio.info
rec.radio.
at the end of .nn/init in order to see all the rec.radio.info bulletins
first, then read rec.radio.amateur.misc without the bulletins.
Personally, I read rec.radio.info, and use the sequence technique with:
rec.radio.info:!n:Cary Oler
in my .nn/kill file (nothing personal Cary, just not interested in Solar
Reports :-).
I'd certainly be willing to work with anyone who wants to set up such a
scheme to customize their presentation of the rec.radio.* groups,
even if they are using a reader other than nn or rn (rec.radio.* groups
only, please, I don't have time to give kill-file help to the entire
net).
73, Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU
Andy Warner
In article <84ty039...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, ikl...@uts.amdahl.com (Ian
Kluft) writes:
> h...@loretta.la.ca.us (Harris Boldt Edelman) writes:
> >Ian Kluft, in <efB803h...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, states that there
> >is support for the proposed reorganization of rec.radio.amateur, then
> >presents a tally whose numbers show that a majority of those participating
> >in the discussion did not favor the proposal. This is invidious.
>
> When you take out the undecided or unclear (unclear == one-liners not
> expressing any opinion) comments, it's 2-to-1 in favor of the split.
Or rather, 13 to 7 or 8 in real numbers. I think you'll be amazed at
the number of folks waiting in the wings to vote a resounding NO (of
course, I could be amazed by the number of folks just waiting to vote
YES too..) I am singularly unmoved by the "it worked in rec.autos,
rec.aviation etc arguments - is there a guerilla force that moves from
group to group dreaming up splits ? Where to next ?
FWIW - I also think .info was a total waste of time, Paul Schleck (apologies
if I mis-spelt your name) explained the rationale to me ("kill file hack").
I still can't hack my kill file to make it work, and I suspect there
are many more like me...
20 or 21 replies seems to me like a poor response for a request for
Paul W Schleck KD3FU
an...@aspen32.cray.com (Andy Warner) writes:
>FWIW - I also think .info was a total waste of time, Paul Schleck (apologies
>if I mis-spelt your name) explained the rationale to me ("kill file hack").
>I still can't hack my kill file to make it work, and I suspect there
>are many more like me...
You've spelled it right. What newsreader are you using? The ability to