Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Description of your first forum.

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Joe Kuster » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00



---------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE ----------------------------

If you've followed any of the threads about splitting this group
and/or creating a rec.plants group, this note is important to you.
The topics have been discussed under the various following Subject:
headings.  If you've actively followed any of these threads then
read on, if you're not interested just skip the rest of this note.

Quote:
>Subject: PROPOSED REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens
>Subject: 2nd RFD: rec.plants.*
>Subject: REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens
>Subject: WARNING: This Group About To Be  DELETED!!
>Subject: rec.gardens.organic...Opinions??
>Subject: Read news.groups re. gardening
>Subject: Splitting the group
>Subject: Splitting rec.garden..?
>Subject: R-E-G-I-O-N-A-L REORGANIZATION>rec.gardens
>Subject: The Split (Was: Please don't flame me)
>Subject: dividing the Garden news group
>Subject: irrevocable mistakes
>Subject: Comp.plants
>Subject: splitting up
>Subject: Hydroponics
>Subject: IMHO :reorganizing rec.gardens recomendation and decision solution
>Subject: rec.plants.*  vote soon. (was re: the split...)
>Subject: Wondering about rec.plants
>Subject: rec.plants and richard sexton
>Subject: Separating rec.gardens
>Subject: 2nd RFD: rec.plants (how do I get the real story)
>Subject: rec.plants maneuver?

Ok, those of you still with me should be familiar with what's been
going on.  In a nutshell:

1 Richard Sexton posted an RFD for a rec.plants hierarchy that affected
  the rec.gardens (among others) hierarchy.

2 At about the same time, discussion was ongoing in rec.gardens about
  reorganizing the group, staying within the rec.gardens hierarchy.

3 Group-advice was contacted and ruled that no rec.gardens RFD would
  be allowed until the rec.plants RFD was finished.

4 The thirty day period for RFD discussion ended for rec.plants and
  people started wondering "what happens now".

5 Group-advice suggested that there be a discussion about some sort
  of "comprehensive" proposal that would address the concerns of
  rec.gardens, rec.plants, and all the others.

  Anyways, according to the Usenet_Newsgroup_Creation_Companion,
here's what should happen next...

Quote:

>Q: How long does the RFD discussion go on?
>A: The minimum period of RFD discussion before you can issue the CFV,
>   even if the consensus of all posters is "good idea, lets do it!" is 21
>   days by preference of the news.announce.newgroups moderator.  If the
>   RFD takes much longer than 30 days, the discussion should be taken
>   offline until a consensus can be reached.

  This is exactly what is happening now!  A mailing list has been set
up for the "offline" discussion of a comprehensive proposal.  If you
are interested in participating in this discussion you really need to
join the list.

  Note: there have been objections raised to the fact that the list
is being run by Richard Sexton and that he might somehow "censor" the
discussion.  Let's try, in order to avoid these claims, that to join
the list, you send an email to the list itself.  This way, those already
on the list (8 so far) will all see each request and will be able to
verify that nobody is being "censored".


Joe Kusterer                   L***Federal Systems - Manassas

---------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Gary Coop » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00




Quote:
> ---------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE ----------------------------

<Much deleted to save bandwidth>

Quote:
>   Anyways, according to the Usenet_Newsgroup_Creation_Companion,
> here's what should happen next...


> >Q: How long does the RFD discussion go on?
> >A: The minimum period of RFD discussion before you can issue the CFV,
> >   even if the consensus of all posters is "good idea, lets do it!" is 21
> >   days by preference of the news.announce.newgroups moderator.  If the
> >   RFD takes much longer than 30 days, the discussion should be taken
> >   offline until a consensus can be reached.

>   This is exactly what is happening now!  A mailing list has been set
> up for the "offline" discussion of a comprehensive proposal.  If you
> are interested in participating in this discussion you really need to
> join the list.

Thanks for that concise and informative post. What concerns me
is this assumption that a consensus *can* be reached.

Discussion (of a sort) has taken place on news.groups and on
here - the majority of it was in opposition to Mr. Sexton's
proposal. Cogent arguments against the proposal were made, yet were not
addressed by the proponent, whose attitude was that while changes to
his proposal could be discussed, outright opposition (seemingly the
majority view) would be met with abuse or silence.

For several of us who attempted to take part in the RFD process,
joining further "discussion" seems pretty pointless, as there is
nothing to discuss. We regard the whole rec.plants argument as
both a logical absurdity and an unwelcome waste of time and energy.

Perhaps what is going on here is a war of attrition? Perhaps it
is felt that if the objectors are worn down, and the opposition to
this proposal is removed from the limelight, the great mass who
will vote when a CFV is issued will be unaware of the objections?
It seems likely that far more people vote than ever take part in the
groups being changed, so could it be that removing the opposition
from public display is a way of making casual voters think there is
none?

In short, what is there to discuss? The opposition to the rec.plants
proposal is strong and no amount of discussion is going to make
rec.plants seem attractive to those of us who think it is a
completely unecessary change. Modification of such a dramatic
proposal is impossible - we either have a whole new sub-hierarchy
(rec. plants) or we stay as we are with rec.gardens which may, later,
be sub-divided. It should be voted on now. It would probably fail.

--
Gary Cooper

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Darius M. Kwiedorowi » Sat, 08 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>  This is exactly what is happening now!  A mailing list has been set
>up for the "offline" discussion of a comprehensive proposal.  If you
>are interested in participating in this discussion you really need to
>join the list.

I'd rather discuss it in the open, warts and all.  An offline mailing
list certainly smacks of underhanded play.  

The 30 day RFD on rec.plants.* came and went.  Vote now or forget
about it.

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Natasha Elizabeth De » Mon, 10 Apr 1995 04:00:00




: > ---------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE ----------------------------

: <Much deleted to save bandwidth>
and more deleted in the same cause......

: Perhaps what is going on here is a war of attrition? Perhaps it
: is felt that if the objectors are worn down, and the opposition to
: this proposal is removed from the limelight, the great mass who
: will vote when a CFV is issued will be unaware of the objections?
: It seems likely that far more people vote than ever take part in the
: groups being changed, so could it be that removing the opposition
: from public display is a way of making casual voters think there is
: none?

Thank you Gary, for putting it so clearly. This is what I was concerned
about when I made my original response to richard's offline discussion
announcement.

Natasha

: In short, what is there to discuss? The opposition to the rec.plants
: proposal is strong and no amount of discussion is going to make
: rec.plants seem attractive to those of us who think it is a
: completely unecessary change. Modification of such a dramatic
: proposal is impossible - we either have a whole new sub-hierarchy
: (rec. plants) or we stay as we are with rec.gardens which may, later,
: be sub-divided. It should be voted on now. It would probably fail.

: --
: Gary Cooper

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by L. R. Fortn » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

>  MUCH DELETED
>   This is exactly what is happening now!  A mailing list has been set
> up for the "offline" discussion of a comprehensive proposal.  If you
> are interested in participating in this discussion you really need to
> join the list.

>   Note: there have been objections raised to the fact that the list
> is being run by Richard Sexton and that he might somehow "censor" the
> discussion.  Let's try, in order to avoid these claims, that to join
> the list, you send an email to the list itself.  This way, those already
> on the list (8 so far) will all see each request and will be able to
> verify that nobody is being "censored".

    I have absolutely no intention of joining this list (8 so far
indeed!).  Rec.plants was a bad idea, received no support, and is DOA.
This has dragged on for far too long.  Stop screwing around and let people
who garden (you know dirty hands and such) get on with a reasonable
reorganization of rec.gardens.

--
Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by John Woodwor » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Quote:

> Stop screwing around and let people>who garden (you know dirty hands and

such) get on with a reasonable

Quote:
>reorganization of rec.gardens.

Reorganizing rec.gardens is just as unreasonable as renaming or repositioning
it. Although Mr Sexton has been more sneaky and confrontational about it, his
proposal is just about as destructive as the other. To me, this is a
six-of-one-half-dozen-of-another thing.

John

"The aristocracy of intellect admits nothing of democracy"

                                     -- Robertson Davies

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Ben Shar » Tue, 11 Apr 1995 04:00:00


If I ma jumping in at the wrong place, I apologize.

I object to rec.plants because it is not immediately apparent from the
name of the group how it differs from rec.gardens. Does it mean houseplants?

For my purposes, something like rec.gardens.edible would be more useful,
but that may just reflect my interests.
--
Live Globally, Die Locally. Witches Heal. So Do ***s. Liberate the
Weirdos and You Liberate the Squares.

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Harry Boswe » Thu, 13 Apr 1995 04:00:00


What is the list?  I've missed this.  Painful as it is, we NEED to join the
list - Sexton can rightly claim that this is according to Usenet protocol,
and we need to hold up our side of the argument.  How do we subscribe?


Information Technology Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers        Vicksburg, MS

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by L. R. Fortn » Thu, 13 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> What is the list?  I've missed this.  Painful as it is, we NEED to join the
> list - Sexton can rightly claim that this is according to Usenet protocol,
> and we need to hold up our side of the argument.  How do we subscribe?

   The last thing I read was that a total of 8 people had signed up for
the list.  The rec.plants thing is a farce that is serving no purpose but
to delay any serious discussion of reorganizing rec.gardens.  I don't
recall reading a positive comment about rec.plants from anyone other than
Sexton himself.
   I don't understand who runs what, but somehow this really got fouled up.

--
Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Bess Hai » Fri, 14 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Well, I susbcribed to the list because if any talking is going
on, I intend to be part of it.  Now I don't remember where I
sent my subscription to...I think to mr. sexton himself. and I

post it later.  Still, It doesn't hurt to know what is going
on...so far there has been nothing much on the list except
questions about when there will be something...
Bess Haile
 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Harry Boswe » Fri, 14 Apr 1995 04:00:00




: > What is the list?  I've missed this.  Painful as it is, we NEED to join the
: > list - Sexton can rightly claim that this is according to Usenet protocol,
: > and we need to hold up our side of the argument.  How do we subscribe?

:    The last thing I read was that a total of 8 people had signed up for
: the list.  The rec.plants thing is a farce that is serving no purpose but
: to delay any serious discussion of reorganizing rec.gardens.  I don't
: recall reading a positive comment about rec.plants from anyone other than
: Sexton himself.
:    I don't understand who runs what, but somehow this really got fouled up.

I agree, Lloyd, but Sexton may be able to ram something down our throats
if we don't keep a watch on what he's doing.  So I want to get on the
mailing list.  But I don't know the listserver name.  HELP, someone!

--

Information Technology Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers        Vicksburg, MS

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Christopher J. Nett » Fri, 14 Apr 1995 04:00:00




Quote:

> > What is the list?  I've missed this.  Painful as it is, we NEED to join the
> > list - Sexton can rightly claim that this is according to Usenet protocol,
> > and we need to hold up our side of the argument.  How do we subscribe?

>    The last thing I read was that a total of 8 people had signed up for
> the list.  The rec.plants thing is a farce that is serving no purpose but
> to delay any serious discussion of reorganizing rec.gardens.  I don't
> recall reading a positive comment about rec.plants from anyone other than
> Sexton himself.
>    I don't understand who runs what, but somehow this really got fouled up.

> --
> Lloyd Fortney ---Opinions, just opinions---

The mailing list is alive and well.  As to whether it's a farce or not
remains to be seen.  But the more rec.gardeners that are on the list and
active in the discussion, then it will surely be one sided.  So the
situation is this:

Richard has posted his agenda to the net.

Quote:
> Here's my projected timeline:
> another week to collect mailing list members
> a month of dicsussion
> a comprehensive RFD
> two weeks of discussion
> (possible 1 month for revision and re-issuence of another rfd)
> voting

The mailing list is in place.

IMHO this looks like a war of attrition. Your job, if you decide to accept
it, is to help fight that war.  

Christopher J. Netter

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Gary Coop » Sat, 15 Apr 1995 04:00:00




<much deleted>

Quote:
> The mailing list is in place.

> IMHO this looks like a war of attrition. Your job, if you decide to accept
> it, is to help fight that war.  

Mr. Sexton has again posted the address for his thrice-accursed
list, but on news.groups, rather than here, where (presumably)
a lot of opponents would have seen it.

According to his post on news.groups, to join the list one sends


I'm wavering about whether you are right here, Christopher. As
far as I can see, there is no possibility of agreement between
someone wishing to change the whole nomenclature of the
sub-hierarchy (from rec.gardens to an illogical rec.plants)
and those who do not. It is an either/or situation, in which
compromise isn't possible, thus discussion is bound to be
time consuming and, err, fruitless.

If I'm right - what is there to discuss? Can you convince those
of us who believe this, otherwise?

--
Gary Cooper

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Darius M. Kwiedorowi » Sat, 15 Apr 1995 04:00:00




Quote:

>The mailing list is in place.

>IMHO this looks like a war of attrition. Your job, if you decide to accept
>it, is to help fight that war.  

No, I don't think so.  When the "comprehensive RFD" comes out it will
probably fall apart the way the last two did.

We've had two RFD's, no CFV.  Now this silly mailing list.  Hopefully,
it will be all for naught.

 
 
 

Reorganizing/splitting rec.gardens + rec.plants

Post by Gary Coop » Sat, 15 Apr 1995 04:00:00




Quote:
> Mr. Sexton has again posted the address for his thrice-accursed
> list, but on news.groups, rather than here, where (presumably)
> a lot of opponents would have seen it.

Subsequent to my having written the above, Mr. Sexton's post
concerning his list has appeared on my news server here in the U.K.,
so I willingly retract this comment.

--
Gary Cooper