On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:46:00 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

Green wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:06:50 -0000, "Martin Sykes"

So how many groups do you think urg should be subdivided into?

--
Martin

It's not about subdividing URG. URG is great and will stay as it is. I just
don't understand why anyone cares if this other group wants another group to
discuss allotment stuff in particular. 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. 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 so why should it matter to URG if someone wants to discuss
allotments separately?

As for the bandwidth cost of subscribing to both groups, the upside is that
for those of us who don't care about allotments, we don't need to download
the allotment stuff at all!

Its nothing to do with bandwidth.

The proponent is supposed to demonstrate a need and sufficient support
for a new group.
Although most of our gardening by area is in an allotment, I honestly
can't see any advantage in a split, unless all the experts on
vegetable gardening move to the allotment newsgroup. Otherwise every
question on vegetables is going to have to be cross posted. In similar
situations on other overlapping groups people soon realise where the
expertise is and only post there.
--
Martin