On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:20:20 +0000, Derek Turner
wrote:

~On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:46:00 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:
~
~It's not about subdividing URG. URG is great and will stay as it is.
~
~ahh but Martin it *is* and it *wont* - that's the way uk newsnet works
~it becomes a sub-group to urg in the heirarchy
~I just
~don't understand why anyone cares if this other group wants another group to
~discuss allotment stuff in particular.
~
~then you've never tried to create a uk* newsgroup and never hung
~around in u.n.n.c (though you're busy cross-posting to it!)

And I have put the crosspost back, as this discussion within urg is
indeed the discussion requested in the RFD so unnc *needs* to see it.

~it's not a group of people making this proposal; it's one individual
~who has never posted here!

I noticed this. According to Google groups, the proposer has posted
here just once with this email address, to ask for a supplier address.
Not even about allotments. (Though he may have posted with another
email addy, of course.)

~ Anyone who wants to discuss
~allotments on URG still can but we don't *own* the subject and trying to
~stop someone discussing elsewhere just isn't fair. Newsgroups aren't
~mutually exclusive.
~
~oh yes they are, at least in the uk hierarchy, the 'rules' are that if
~a subject is adequately covered elsewhere no new group should be
~created. The exception to this is where the volume of traffic makes
~moving a sub-topic desirable. Are we flooded with allotment posts so
~badly that we can't see the others? No! are allotments off-topic in
~urg? definitely not!

I agree. And I know that the hierarchy watchfolk do notice if a
splinter group isn't terribly popular. See below...

~
~ I don't see anyone in rec.gardens (which as I understand
~it is about gardening worldwide) complaining about URG discussing UK based
~issues separately
~
~that's what the uk hierarchy is for! whoever set it up would have had
~to argue that gardening in the UK was sufficiently different from the
~USA in order to start urg in the first place!
~
~here's a quote from the urg charter

snipped

~so why should it matter to URG if someone wants to discuss
~allotments separately?
~
~because no cogent argument is being made in the (very badly written)
~RFD to justify one. In creating a new group the case needs to be
~proved 'why', not 'why not'
~
~hth Derek

I see the points of those folk wondering why on earth we would want to
oppose a motion. I do not object to this motion per se - just don't
think it's necessary!
I've seen a group break off a uk.x group before, stay broken off for
a couple of years or so and then get remerged by the net watchdogs
because of the very low posting frequencies.

One idea that came out of this re-merger was to put [subject] on a
post, so as to note the posts which would otherwise have gone into the
subgroup.

Perhaps all that is needed here is to do likewise - the subject could
be [allotment] to distinguish it from an ornamental [garden] query or
[houseplants] query or [trees] etc.

There's also the matter that smaller groups may not be taken by all
newsfeeds, so posts invariably wind up on the main group anyway!

Just another thought to throw into the murk... :-)


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!