Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!dsill From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: **** Call for Discussion -- Creation of Sci.Aquaria **** Message-ID: <166@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Date: 13 Oct 89 13:29:44 GMT References: <2678@cpoint.UUCP> <2213@cbnewsd.ATT.COM > <3182@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu > <152@ark1.nswc.navy.mil > <2287@cbnewsd.ATT.COM> <156@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <2674@cpoint.UUCP> <161@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Sender: news@ark1.nswc.navy.mil Reply-To: Dave Sill Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA Lines: 84 In article <2678@cpoint.UUCP>, alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) writes: > In article <161@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > >Why not propose rec.aquariums now, with a general hobbyist-oriented > >charter, keeping alt.aquaria for the tech talk? Then later propose > >moving alt.aquaria to rec.aquariums.tech or sci.aquaria or whatever. > >Even proposing both groups simultaneously now would be better than > >trying to simply move alt.aquaria. > > I see ... so this is sort of like extortion? Not at all. The fact is, you just can't expect the masses to respect the charter of a group. Let's say sci.aquaria is created, and its charter is technical/scientific discussion related to fresh and saltwater aquariums. Now, along comes Joe Frosh looking for a place to ask about what color background would look good with his multicolored gravel and bubbling treasure-chest. Where's he going to post? You guessed it. There are three solutions I see. The first is to create a more general-purpose aquarium newsgroup (which would *not* belong under sci). Give the group a chance to get going, say two months. Then propose creating the tech/sci aquarium group, either as a subgroup or under sci. With the general-purpose group available, Joe Frosh won't even be tempted to post his article to the inappropriate tech/sci group. The second solution is to propose both of the above groups simultaneously. The problem with this is if the hobbyist group fails, but the tech group passes. Perhaps we could make the creation of the tech group contingent upon the passage of the hobbyist group. The third solution is to create a moderated tech/sci group. > The net.gods decide that it > would be nice to have a rec.aquariums or rec.pets.aquariums for the masses > of goldfish and guppy fans, so we can't have our group until they get thiers? First, I don't know why you're dragging "net.gods" into this. Resistance to sci.aquaria has come pretty evenly from all levels. What makes you think there'd be anything gained by holding your group hostage? The net community is perfectly capable of creating whatever groups it needs. The point is that the sci.aquaria proposal is seriously flawed. > This despite the fact that we have demonstrated a consistent, long-term > interest and, for all you know, the K-Mart fish department crowd may not > support the traffic? Stand back, folks, he's getting elitist on us now. It's highly unlikely that the hobbyist group will fail if there is enough interest to support a tech/sci group. Don't forget that the hobbyist group will have to pass a vote too. If your group's not moderated, and there's no hobbyist group, how do you expect to keep hobbyist pollution out? > I don't propose rec.KMart.aquariums because I don't want it. Wrong answer. If you want your unmoderated, mainstream, technical aquarium group, that may be the only way it'll happen. > If we started a bozo group while maintaining alt.aquaria, I wouldn't > subscribe to it. Who's asking you to? > Go check out rec.pets and see if there is enough traffic there on fish > to justify rec.pets.aquariums. Umm, doesn't alt.aquaria get most of the current fish hobbyist traffic? > If so, suggest that they start it. If not, please don't try to get > us to 'jump on our sword' and create a group for them. Please explain how proposing a hobbyist group would be detrimental to your goal. The whole point is that it would make your group viable by directing inappropriate novice discussion elsewhere. At this point, it would be out of line for anyone but the original proposer of sci.aquaria, Richard Sexton, to alter the proposal, withdraw it, or propose a related tropical fish hobbyist group. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)