Subject: rec.plants maneuver?

From: [email-masked] (Patrick Burke)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 18:12:14 GMT

To all of you following the rec.plants RFD:  What does this mean?

Quotation beginning:

Case in point. I cuurently am running a contentious RFD for
rec.plants.

The fine rec.gardens folk were told by group-bad-advice they COULD NOT
proceed with a rec.gardens reorganization until "this rec.plants
thing is settled" ignoring th obvious fact that a rec.gardens
reorganization
was an implicit part of the creation of rec.plants. One piece of
"advice"
from group-bad-advice and BAM 50,000 or 500,000 or however many
readers
of rec.gardens are stopped in their tracks. This is not "advice", this
is "control".

I spoke with Dave on the phone and he told me that he thought
rec.plants
and rec.gardens shouls be done together, yet I have in my posession,
mail to somebody else from him wherein he say the opposite. I've
repeatedly
asked both Dave and group-bad-advice to publicly clarify this; to
DECIDE which version of the truth should stand - it's been a week they
havn't.

Rec.gardens and rec.plants will go forward as a single comprehensive
proposal, this is a project which will encompass:

        1) reorganization of rec.gardens
        2) Creation of rec.plants hierarchy
        3) cretion of newsgroups as adjuncts to or replacements for,
plant
        mailing lists currently extant.

This is rather a major project and IMHO beyond the scope of what can
realistically be accomplished by discusing it in news.groups. As such,
I'm taking the discussion offline. I've set up [email-masked] as a
mailing
list for those intersted in the discussion. Send me mail if you want
to be on it. The proponents for rec.plants, rec.gardens.reorg and
a few other that know about things botannical and newsgruop structure
and organization have been included.

Quotation ended

The above was from Richard Sexton's post yesterday.  Does that mean,
as it sounds, that discussion of this rec.plants thing will no longer
be carried out in news.groups?  What's going on with all this?  I,
for one, like rec.gardens just like it is.  Can anybody clarify this?

Patrick Burke
Social Sciences Computing
The University of Chicago

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 31 Mar 1995 02:27:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Patrick Burke <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Does that mean,

There is lots going on in the Usenet world these days: leave it to Sexton
to try to grab a little bit of the furor. I'd not be too hasty in following
anything Mr. Sexton says about newsgroup creation: there still is a
protocol and if rec.gardens wants to reorganize, let it as long as the
traditional channels are followed.

Sexton's next move is to write a cfv for rec.plants.*
If he doesn't and people still want to reorganize rec.gardens, then why not.
Nowhere does it say that Sexton and rec.plants.* have to have anything to
do with rec.gardens and the possible rec.gardens reorg.

Adam
-- 
______________________________________
Adam Finkelstein 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Gary Cooper)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:26:44 +0000

In article <[email-masked]>
           [email-masked] "Adam Finkelstein" writes:

>  Yes, he is. But, he has very little credibility. The "laws" of Usenet group
> creation are mutable I think, and somewhere there are people who might
> listen to a rational many voiced discussion about rec.plants.* and how it
> has tied up anyone else from doing anything.
> Seemingly from the posts, Sexton has _very little_ support. Could
> rec.gardens people rally and as a group write or appoint some people to
> write to group advice, Tale, and post to news.groups explaining this
> situation and seeing what others have to say?
>  We aren't asking for anything too unreasonable, just the chance to make
> changes in Usenet that are popular. :)
> 
> What do you think?

I agree with you, Adam, even though I am very strongly opposed
to the proposal for rec.gardens' dismemberment. I've taken my eye off 
the ball since the initial furore died down because, like many others
I suspect, I find the Byzantine politics of Usenet about as deeply
fascinating as watching mountains grow. But, Sexton is obviously still 
up to his tricks and we need to watch what he's doing. Please post 
(or e-mail me if you prefer) with any suggestions about what we 
might actually do. I *certainly* have no interest in subscribing
to any mailing list he sets up as he has already demonstrated
(both here and on news.groups) that he has no interest in the
process of reasoned argument, but I appreciate that something needs
to be done.

-- 
Gary Cooper

---

From: [email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 16:23:09 GMT

Adam and Gary - please count me in.  I tried to explain in n.g that Richard
was not One of "us" RG'ers, but I got major flamed instead.  But I do not
want him holding up any dicussions "we" can have about possible reorg. of
RG.  Please keep me posted too, as I have not seen naything in a few days on
news.groups about the CFV or RFP.

Meredith

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:01:14 GMT

ME TOO.  I'll be glad to help in any way I can.

I haven't followed much of the discussion since I put in my 2
cents worth at the beginning of this discussion.  But from time
to time I drop in on new groups and I've seen some shockingly
nasty name calling from mr. sexton which is enough to make me
wary of him.  

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:03:49 GMT

It seems to me that those of us who USE rec.gardens, but may
not be particularly skilled at either the politics or the
protocol of new group manipulation, are in BIG BIG TROUBLE!  Is
there someone who is sympathetic to the view that rec.gardens
remain unchanged, but is also conversant with the P & P of
newsgroups post to rec.gardens, with advice or at least with a
source for finding out more about the dirty movements afoot.

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Fellwalker)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 05:35:45 GMT

Adam Finkelstein ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>,
: Patrick Burke <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >
: >To all of you following the rec.plants RFD:  What does this mean?
: >
: >Does that mean,
: >as it sounds, that discussion of this rec.plants thing will no longer
: >be carried out in news.groups?  What's going on with all this?  I,
: >for one, like rec.gardens just like it is.  Can anybody clarify this?
: >
: >

: There is lots going on in the Usenet world these days: leave it to Sexton
: to try to grab a little bit of the furor. I'd not be too hasty in following
: anything Mr. Sexton says about newsgroup creation: there still is a
: protocol and if rec.gardens wants to reorganize, let it as long as the
: traditional channels are followed.

: Sexton's next move is to write a cfv for rec.plants.*
: If he doesn't and people still want to reorganize rec.gardens, then why not.
: Nowhere does it say that Sexton and rec.plants.* have to have anything to
: do with rec.gardens and the possible rec.gardens reorg.

     Since I was writing the rfd for the rec.gardens reorginization, I 
wrote to Mr. Sexton asking to be placed on his mailing list (and 
suggesting an alternative to rec.plants)...I haven't heard anything yet. 
    If you check through the guides available for newsgroup creation, 
they state something to the effect of...After (so many) days pass, either 
a cfv will be posted or discussion will be taken to email. Technically, 
discussion is still taking place on rec.plants, so I can't do anything 
towards posting the rec.gardens rfd until either rec.plants is decided or 
dropped, or (as Mr. Sexton was refering to) a comprehensive proposal 
including both is posted.
   In other words, he _is_ following the accepted channels, so we'll have 
to wait awhile longer and see what happens.

--Max
-- 
--  ...with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes... <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Gary Cooper)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 14:26:44 +0000

-- 
Gary Cooper

---

From: [email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 16:23:09 GMT

Meredith

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:01:14 GMT

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:03:49 GMT

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Fellwalker)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 05:35:45 GMT

--Max

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 14:01:14 GMT

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Bess Haile)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:03:49 GMT

Bess Haile

---

From: [email-masked] (Fellwalker)
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 05:35:45 GMT

--Max

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 4 Apr 1995 12:07:04 GMT

What do you think?

Adam