Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.plants (how do I get the real story)

From: "Sean A. O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 14:25:33 PDT

> From: [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
> Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.gardens
> Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: rec.plants.*
> Followup-To: news.groups
> Date: 20 Mar 1995 10:40:27 -0500
> On the other hand, I have extensive experience in newsgroup creation
> and reorganizarion go back 7 years, but I would never be as pompous
> to just say "trust me". Every proposal must stand up on it's own merits.
>                     http://www.vrx.net/~richard
>   Richard J. Sexton  /  VRx Network Services, Inc.  /  [email-masked]

Richard - 

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread as I found it too confusing
to follow what is 'supposed' to happen in the creation or splitting of a
newsgroup, as well as being uninterested in following flames of this kind.
I am also not interested in participating in any arguing over this issue,
but am waiting and wondering what is going to happen to this group as are
many of its readers (frankly, amid all this hub-bub, I still can't figure
out what I would be able to do to influence the outcome!)

I would suggest that most, if not all, of the readers of this group have
very little interest in how newsgroups are (or should) be formed or
re-formed.  They are here to discuss the topic at hand.  Their interests
in what is happening to this group reflect the passionate feeling they have
about what a group like this has brought into their life (what we all hope
the INTERNET will do, right?).

Being a Computer Systems Analyst myself, I can sympathize that there is 
indeed a certain way in which things should proceed.  I beleive that the
difficulties seen in the readers of this group not conforming to that 'way'
have more to do with the fact that this 'way' has as yet to be defined in
any real way that I or others might understand.  I have not seem this on
any of the USENET groups I have read, nor have I ever received any info
on this issue when I have requested it from various persons such as yourself
(who have setup new groups - you are correct, I have not asked you).

I'd like to see less bantering back an forth about what people should do,
without having access to the simple facts of this 'game'.  I work long and
hard hours and occasionally find some relaxation in reading this group.  I
will do do a lot a digging around to discover all the 'ins & outs' myself,
I certainly do not expect other, less technically inclined readers to do 
this either.

I think it is also unseemly for someone in the role of reforming this
discussion group to be 'arguing' in front of all the readers.

I for one, have tried to access new.groups to see what might be happening
to rec.gardens (as you requested) but apparently do not have access to this
group.  Perhaps it 'should' be different, but there you are. . . 
 
 H O R T U L U S   A P T U S  ('gardens', 'suited to their purpose')
 Sean A. O'Hara
 710 Jean Street, Oakland, CA  94610-1459        [email-masked]
 (510) 987-0577

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 21 Mar 1995 22:35:17 GMT

Having some autonomy has never been an undesirable thing. So it is with
the issue of rec.plants.*
 Simply ignoring the issue is up to you, although using the resources at
your disposal is fairly easy and simple:

the issue is being discussed in _news.groups_

to learn about how groups are made or changed simply read the newsgroup:
news.announce.newusers or news.answers and look there for the files on
newsgroup creation.

It is your internet as much as anyone else's.
Why not participate in how it works?
:)

Adam
-- 
______________________________________
Adam Finkelstein 
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 17:33:04 GMT

>In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Richard Sexton)
writes:
>>                                                              I have
>>written to group-advice and asked them to recant their bad advice to
>>hold off on the the reorgnization of rec.gardens until rec.plants
>>is resolved, and carry on the reorg of rec.gardens concurrently with
>>rec.plants,
>
>Won't group-advice think that there will still be a problem since
>the rec.plants proposal will call for rec.plants.roses and
>the rec.gardens proposal will call for rec.gardens.ornamental.roses?

I would like to remind everyone involved in this discussion that *no one* on
rec. gardens began this idea of rec. plants.  It was the brainchild of
Richard Sexton who habitually tries to re-organize the bb's to his liking.  

Mr. Sexton, let rec. gardens handle rec. gardens and you go create your
little rec. plants.  Gardening is an activity, not a phyllum, and as such
has a wide ranging list of topics and discussions.  

FYI, Mr Sexton proposed this last year to rec.pets.dogs, as he wanted to
include them in a new group of his creation rec. wildlife.    then, as now,
he was not a regular on the groups but a self-appointed mop-up person on the
net.

Meredith

---

From: [email-masked] (Harry Boswell)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:12:56 GMT

Hey Adam,

Any clue as to when this thing will actually come to a vote?

--
Harry Boswell                 [email-masked]  
Information Technology Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers        Vicksburg, MS

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 24 Mar 1995 14:50:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Any clue as to when this thing will actually come to a vote?
 Browsing through tale's list of newsgroup proposals and their status
(found in both news.groups and news.announce.newgroups)
Mr. Sexton's proposal is not listed. This means that his discussion has
gone on longer than one month. It is up to him to post the cfv, if he feels
his proposal has merit and if a vote is warranted.

 If he posts a cfv, then we may vote.

Adam

---

From: "Sean A. O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 95 14:25:33 PDT

Richard -

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 21 Mar 1995 22:35:17 GMT

Adam

---

From: [email-masked] (Meredith Morris-Babb)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 17:33:04 GMT

Meredith

---

From: [email-masked] (Harry Boswell)
Date: 22 Mar 1995 15:12:56 GMT

Hey Adam,

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Finkelstein)
Date: 24 Mar 1995 14:50:03 GMT

Adam