Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Call for Discussion: rec.radio Message-ID: <25100016@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 7 Feb 90 10:40:20 GMT References: <43914@<1990Feb7> Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:<1990Feb7:43914:ux1.cso.uiuc.edu:25100016:000:1367 Nf-From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!phil Feb 6 23:36:00 1990 I agree with Eric. While there is still an excessive mixture of topics in rec.ham-radio now, many of which can go into existing groups, it is still too early (in the life of rec.radio.shortwave) to make knee-jerk reactions. Not every host has added rec.radio.shortwave yet (these things never get done automatically at so many places anyway, as I know all too well with the slow addition of rec.ham-radio.swap here). Let's give things a chance to settle down first and then see what we need. Another 6 months ought to take care of it. Maybe rec.ham-radio does need another split, but it is not clear right now just what that should be. Another problem with rec.radio.shortwave is that it is trying to be a little more than its name implies, even though all this was known during the vote. I personally think the name choice was a little too narrow, but now is not the time to be changing it. We might find it better to split rec.ham-radio in other ways anyway, such as rec.ham-radio.fcc or such. I do expect to see one more (and hopefully the FINAL one) round of "no code" debates there. But I don't know if we have the time to head it off with a subgroup, as it may hit as soon as a couple weeks from now. The hamlicen@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu mailing list is the best bet for the time being to help that situation. --Phil Howard, KA9WGN--