Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!brazos.rice.edu!bbc From: bbc@nysa.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Now that Peter is done with the aquaria poll... Summary: call for call for discussion on creation of rec.aquaria Message-ID: Date: 14 Dec 89 22:46:31 GMT Sender: root@rice.edu Reply-To: Benjamin Chase Distribution: usa Organization: CPRC, Rice University Lines: 67 [Note the lack of cross-post to *.aquaria, etc. Note the presence of "aquaria" in the "Subject:" field. If you don't like this thread, don't whine to me or the net, but rather blame yourself for not editing your kill file two months ago.] Okay, I was sooooo patient. Peter is done collecting his "data". Now that there is no fish vote in progress, and apparently no pending action resulting from Peter's name survey... Would some patient, thick-skinned, even-handed soul please run a terse discussion (Oxymoron Alert, duck and cover...) and non-controversial vote (OA., ...) on the creation of an additional newsgroup, called rec.aquaria, for the discussion of the recreational aspects of keeping aquaria? (No, Oleg, not you. Your exceptionally thick skin doesn't make up for your uneven hands. And I don't think anyone else at Gryphon need apply for this dangerous job. The fish-haters think you're all RJS clones. :-) Alien Wells tendered a feeler on this some weeks back. Perhaps he would be willing to brave the slings and arrows? My eventual hope is that rec.aquaria be created. Then after the dust settles (eg. 2-3 months after creation, when cross-posting between the old and new groups falls), a vote of either confidence or removal should be held on sci.aquaria. This vote would be intented to convince news managers to alter the propagation of that group in one manner or another, either removing hindrances and renamings, or flushing it wholesale. As it stands now, sci.aquaria is the thalidomide baby of the newsgroup hierarchy. Something should be done, one way or the other. If in the end sci.aquaria is removed, and nothing created to satisfy its charter (scientific or technical discussion of maintaining aquaria?), then I plan on being disappointed. If sci.aquaria does go away, perhaps alt.aquaria will still be around, and can be retreaded to serve the diabolical purposes of "aquarium science". And now, a (schizophrenic?) Q&A session: Why another fish group? I believe the need exists. I believe the support exists. Why rec.aquaria? Peter's poll showed support for this name. Why not just rename sci.aquaria to be rec.aquaria? All things in good time. If rec.aquaria becomes the roaring success that everyone claims, and sci.aquaria languishes, then later we can hold a vote to remove sci.aquaria. Thus the renaming is accomplished. I feel that creating rec.aquaria first, and then seeing what happens, is the simplest course. Yes, my solution takes more time. I haven't noticed any shortage of time. I have observed far too many flames. I feel my plan avoids those. Why do anything? As I see it now, the distribution of sci.aquaria is flawed, because of the anarchy and rebellion caused by the name controversy. Also, alt.aquaria and sci.aquaria currently overlap rather than complement each other. As evidence, I point to the number of crossposts between these two groups. [End of meta-meta discussion] Yes, if someone else hasn't done this by January SomethingOrOther, then I'll take it up myself, unless someone convinces me that it's a bad idea. I think Greg W. could convince me. Peter da Silva or Jeff D., no chance. -- Ben Chase , Rice University, Houston, Texas (First one up against the wall when the fish police arrived.)