Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mtunh.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!jak
From: jak@mtunh.UUCP (Jim Kutsch)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio,net.news.group
Subject: new group net.ham-radio.packet -- history/apology/future
Message-ID: <459@mtunh.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 11:24:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtunh.459
Posted: Fri Jun 14 11:24:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 07:49:32 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 43
Xref: watmath net.ham-radio:2829 net.news.group:3148

History-- About a month ago  Clifford@mit-eddie  posted  an  article  in
net.ham-radio  which  among  other  things told of the Arpa mailing list
"packet-radio".  Several packeteers in my local area were interested  in
reading  the  list.   A  brief  discussion  in newsgroup "net.ham-radio"
discussed the possibility of gatewaying  the  "packet-radio"  list  into
"net.ham-radio".    However,   the  Arpa  list  "info-hams"  is  already
exchanged with "net.ham-radio".

There are good reasons to keep the two separate.  About three weeks ago,
I  posted  an  article  asking  for  comments  on the proposal to create
"net.ham-radio.packet" as a subgroup and connect it  with  the  "packet-
radio" list.  In that article I indicated I would create the group after
a suitable waiting period if no one  objected.   Unfortunately,  at  the
time  mtunh  was  having  some  news distribution problems.  Among other
things, the proposal did not make it to "net.news.group".  In  fact,  it
might  not  have  made  it  very far off mtunh at all, even in "net.ham-
radio".

Last week, based on no negative replies and  several  positive  ones,  I
created  the  "net.ham-radio.packet"  group.   I  have  received several
flames since then.

Explanation/Apology-- I was not trying to make a decision and  force  it
on  the  entire  net!  I am not a newcomer to Usenet (In fact, I created
"net.ham-radio" in the first place over 4 years ago!), and know the  net
procedures.  I am sorry that we had news distribution problems here.

Solution-- So, let's try again ...  Other than the flames on  procedural
issues,  does  anyone  have  any  real  problems  with  the  creation of
net.ham-radio.packet?  I am already on the mailing list and  am  getting
the  info,  but several others around here would like to read it too.  I
did get several positive replies (from those who saw my first  posting).
It  seems  (to me) that there is sufficient interest for a newsgroup and
it should be a subgroup under net.ham-radio.  I guess at this point  the
new  group  exists on some sites, but I know from the flames that others
have removed it.  Let's get the useless  exchange  on  proper  etiquitte
etc.  over with and get to the technical content of packet radio.

What say? Let's shoot for a JUly 15 decision  of  "net.ham-radio.packet"
-- to be or not to be???

Jim Kutsch  ihnp4!mtunh!jak or ihnp4!mtunh!ky2d!jak
ATTIS Holmdel, NJ  (201) 834-2092