Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson
From: watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: a newsgroup for the discussion of non-commercial radio
Summary: Whether soc., misc., biz., or talk. is best
Message-ID: <661@halley.UUCP>
Date: 7 Feb 90 05:04:40 GMT
References: <659@halley.UUCP> <9002020603.AA22281@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu>
Reply-To: watson@halley.UUCP (William Watson)
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX
Lines: 61

peterson@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson) writes:
> Since this will be for commercial as well as for nocommercial stations,
> shouldn't this go in biz.radio?
> Aren't the rec.* groups for non-commercial discussions?

> I would favor a radio group as well, and I agree that it is difficult to
> categorize.  If it were for *listener* discussion, I would well put it in
> rec.*.  If it were for *professional* discussion (as proposed), I would put
> it in biz.*. ...
> I'm not sure I see why it should go in soc.* ...

He also pointed out, validly, that the heirarchies are for content, not
distribution, else eveything would be sci.* or comp.*.

I feel that the group probably belong in soc.*, talk.*, or misc.*, but as
I'm not an expert in the drawing of fine lines between such groups, I will
just state my reasoning, and let others comment on the appropriate place for
the group.

1) biz:  *Professionally* run stations have numerous channels for
communication, and tend not to be affiliated with colleges or other
news locations.  While I don't want to exclude discussions of matters
that apply to commercial outfits, I would not expect such matters to take
up much of the bandwidth of the group.  I don't think that any business
is likely to use the group as a means of furthering their operations.
Should such an eventuality rear itself, we would have to deal with the
consequences.

2) rec:  While most of the posters in this discussion (I assume) are
at least tangentially involved in the operation of radio stations, I
expect that few make a living at it.  Thus, it could be argued that
this is a mere pasttime, and worthy of inculsion in rec.*.  I suspect
that many would feel more of a commitment than this implies, and that
such a classification might feel more appropriate for a newgsroup of
listeners.

3) soc:  I feel that I'm on weak ground here, in that I'm not exactly
sure what the precise definition of a soc group is.  soc.culture.*
sounds like discussion of a sociological nature, while soc.singles
sounds like social discussion, that may turn to sociology occasionally.
I think that the proposed group would tend to have a fair amount of
discussion of censorship and the uses to which the airwaves are put,
making it a valid candidate for this classification.

4) talk:  I expect a fair amount of discussion to arise, so this *might*
be the right place.

5) misc:  If we can't figure it out, or can't justify putting it anywhere
else, perhaps here?

6) alt:  If the proposal fails, but we can still get someone to newgroup it.

7-) comp, mod, news, sci:  All don't fit the proposal at all.

Did I miss any?

William

-- 
William J. Watson
(cs.utexas.edu!halley!watson, watson@halley.mpd.tandem.com, watson@halley.uucp)