Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!enea.se!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Namespace Spring Cleaning -- not this year.
Message-ID: <8910161952.AA10769@helios.enea.se>
Date: 16 Oct 89 19:52:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 90

Chuq von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) writes:
>I wrote:
>>Unless, one should try to form a top-level domain covering the
>>aspects of commercial life and workplace issues. This should be
>>a "serious" domain, and be honoured as such.
>
>That sounds like a second level domain in soc, not a top-level domain of its
>own. These are social aspects of commercial events and workplaces.

Certainly correct. But don't tell me soc is serious, unless...
(To be continued below.)

>Now we get into name space politics. Define serious. My definition: all
>top-level domains except talk. Others would throw in rec.all, and I probably
>wouldn't argue loudly. Others still toss in soc.all, and I start yelling.

Chuq is doing a nasty trick of agrumentation here. He's asking me
define a term that he knows is inherently slippery, and which he
knows that I know it is, I did put the words in quotes, didn't I?
  Nevertheless, I will giving you a very loose definition of "serious":
"Serious" topics are topics that concerns our professional life. This
includes technical items, but also social, commercial and other non-
technical issues. One could say that it's the serious topics that
motivates our employers to pay for the net, since our work benefit 
from the channel.
  In contrast topics that concern our private life are "unserious".
They can be more considered more or less "unserious", though. Rec
groups that helps us exchange information about our hobbies are to
me more serious than exchanging of flames, pardon me opinions, as
in group like talk.poilitics.misc.
  This definition is very vague and should be use with utmost care.
If for nothing else: what is a hobby for one person could be profession
to another. This is particulary evident in the sci groups. And, one
should not forget, there is a good deal of "unserious" material in the
comp groups too, the most serious of them all. All language and OS
wars, all uninformed replies etc.

>Fact: there are a bunch of newsgroups in soc.all that should really be talk
>groups. That doesn't imply that soc.all isn't a serious domain -- just that
>we haven't taken it seriously enough to kick the idiots over where they
>belong.

Good point! If you got away with all the garbage to talk or alt, *then*
soc could be considered a serious domain. But don't try to tell me
that soc *today* is serious. Not with groups soc.singles/men/women/etc (*)
hanging around. But, honestly isn't soc a lost case? It is too much
associated with the groups above, and haven't they existed as long
as soc have existed? To me it seems like you are changing the
definition of soc. No matter what Spaf's list says, after the domain
are defined by their contents.
  If you ever go ahead with your sping cleaning, this is a good way
to start. Either move "unserious" soc groups to talk, or extract
the "serious" (are there any?) to a new domain. The latter is likely
to cause less fuzz.

>My point exactly. You're arguing against soc because it's been overtaken by
>the screamers. Better, rather than write the domain off, to move the
>screamers off to talk where they belong.

I think we agree on the state of affairs, but have different ideas
on how to fix it. You seem more idealistic than me.

>(Having just done a survey of all
>the groups on the net, let me add that there is an amazing about of *crap*
>out there.)

I believe you. Given how much crap in the < 20 groups I read, mostly
comp and rec.music.* I can imagine. Needless to say news.groups is
a clear winner in my newsrc in the crap book.

>>Do you read sci.lang Chuq? I conclude you do not. If you did,
>>you wouldn't come up with that proposal.
>
>You conclude wrong. Before I recommended a renaming, I read every group to
>make sure I wasn't speaking out of my hat. Doesn't mean I didn't make a
>mistake, but I *did* do my research before opening my mouth.

OK, I have to believe you on the groups I don't read. My argument was
mostly for would they good contain in a perfect world. Your
conclusion about sci.lang was not correct, though. (Depending
on the sample you get sci.lang could appear as soc.culture.english.
It could also appear as something completely incomprehensible for
a layman.)

(*) My opinion on these groups is mostly based on rumours and 
prejudgements. I have only followed soc.singles, and that was
about a week.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic