Xref: utzoo news.groups:22834 misc.education:746 soc.college:5534 comp.org.ieee:369 sci.edu:1022
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!sunspot!blackje
From: blackje@sunspot.crd.ge.com (J. Emmett Black)
Newsgroups: news.groups,misc.education,soc.college,comp.org.ieee,sci.edu
Subject: Re: FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION on engineers' newsgroup(s)
Message-ID: <10807@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 6 Aug 90 13:51:15 GMT
References: <1990Aug3.163655.28047@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GE Research; Schenectady, NY  12345
Lines: 25

In article <1990Aug3.163655.28047@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> lvron@earth.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>FINAL CALL FOR DISCUSSION on engineers' newsgroup(s)
>(was misc.engineers and before that, was talk.engineering.education)
>
>Please follow-up to news.groups or via e-mail only.  People are starting
>to complain about follow-ups.
>
>Purposes of discussion:
>
>(1) To determine where the engineers' group(s) belong: under sci or misc;
>(2) To determine whether we need one group or two.
>
>The charters for two groups, named sci.engr.edu and sci.engr.misc, 


Why should engineering be under either sci or misc ?
Why not have a "top-level" newsgroup for engineering?

Then we could have "engr.software," "engr.systems," "engr.power,"
"engr.chem," "engr.edu," "engr.misc," "engr.professional" and others.

--
--Emmett
	J.E.Black; GE Research/K1-3C26; Schenectady, NY 12345
	blackje@crd.ge.com