On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:27:14 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote:


I am an allotment holder, I run an allotment diary on my webpage (with
hints, tips etc) and I do think there's a need for a place for people
to ask questions. I subscribed in the first place to urg as it was
just that and I had a query or two.
A lottie subgroup would probably be a very low volume group, and most
of the posts would probably get crossposted to urg in any case, to
catch folk who didn't sub to the new group.

In which situation, why do we need a new one? urg is not the highest
volume group and it's friendly! And allotments are not off topic...

My take: Subgroup not needed as urg is inclusive, and most posts would
probably be crossposted to urg in any case, wasting bandwidth.

Not that I have the right in a uk group, but I agree. Seems like half
the posts to rec.gardens are cross-posted to rec.gardens.edible. The
truly specialized groups (.ponds, .bamboo, .orchids) are useful for
particular passions. Rec.gardens covers houseplants, as gardeners
inside and outside overlap considerably. I enjoy 'allotment' posts
here because while this isn't common in the US, there *are* a few
(I've had one) and the posts are interesting.

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!

--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

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!)

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

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 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

quote
In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific
newsgroups, discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands and
the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic,
legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of gardening in
other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other regional
gardening newsgroups, and the global rec.gardens, one of which may be
more appropriate). Please note that this exclusion relates to subject
matter, not people, and posters from around the globe will be welcome
to participate in or initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics.

Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation
between US climate zones and the climate of the UK.
/quote

a cogent argument is being made for a uk group!

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

"Derek Turner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:46:00 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

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!


OK I can see where you're coming from if there are specific rules in place
for uk.* but is that what the objection is about? I guess if he wanted to
start rec.allotments or free.uk.gardening.allotments instead then he
wouldn't be bound by the same rules? In which case he would still have
exactly the same effect for better or worse on the content of URG.

Are we flooded with allotment posts so
sadly that we can't see the others? No! are allotments off-topic in
urg? definitely not!

Is there not also an argument though that it may be desirable to move a
topic precisely because it is low volume and a specialist interest. I don't
see URG being swamped by allotment posts but I can easily see a case for
saying that allotment posts are swamped by the volume of other information.

I'm not going to argue this indefinitely but I just think that if the guy
wants a quiet corner in which to discuss allotments and nothing else with
like-minded souls then I'm not going to stand in his way.

Martin

The message
from "Martin Sykes" contains
these words:
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?

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?

Agree. I see no substantial reason to oppose the formation of the new group.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"Christopher Norton" wrote in message
...
The message
from Chris French and Helen Johnson
contains these words:

In message , martin
writes
----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following
changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

create unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.gardening.allotments

Newsgroup line:
uk.rec.gardening.allotments Allotments holders group


snip

Yes, it's here on my machine - right next to yours in fact.

Can't say i see any need for it though
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

I saw the original post too. Not overly sure that an allotment only one
would be of greatest use. But then it would certainly be added to the
list I take.

When I got on line a couple of years ago, I was astonished to find that
there wasn't a specific allotment group, especially considering some of the
narrow interest groups which are represented.

I don't see a conflict. I shall subscribe to it, assuming it comes into
existence, and I do not doubt that it will. I shall still subscribe to URG
and indeed to rec. gardens. edible I shall try to avoid crossposting,
although I have to admit I sometimes click on reply to group without
noticing the OP was crossposted.

My allotment is about three times the size of my front and back gardens
combined, so my main interest is in allotment gardening, although we do use
the allotment for producing cut flowers for the home and various other
aspects of gardening rather than strictly allotmenteering.

I look forward to its creation.

Steve

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!

Martin Sykes wrote:

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?

Agreed. I would welcome the creation of the allotments group as that is my
*main* gardening interest - although I would also remain subscribed to
u.r.g.
--
Regards,

Tròy the Black Lab.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:43:43 +0000, Troy wrote:


Agreed. I would welcome the creation of the allotments group as that is my
*main* gardening interest - although I would also remain subscribed to
u.r.g.

I can't see the point of that. Explain what that gives you that you
haven't got already?
--
Martin

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:44:38 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

"Derek Turner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:46:00 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:

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!


OK I can see where you're coming from if there are specific rules in place
for uk.* but is that what the objection is about? I guess if he wanted to
start rec.allotments or free.uk.gardening.allotments instead then he
wouldn't be bound by the same rules? In which case he would still have
exactly the same effect for better or worse on the content of URG.

Are we flooded with allotment posts so
sadly that we can't see the others? No! are allotments off-topic in
urg? definitely not!

Is there not also an argument though that it may be desirable to move a
topic precisely because it is low volume and a specialist interest. I don't
see URG being swamped by allotment posts but I can easily see a case for
saying that allotment posts are swamped by the volume of other information.

If you want to see the result of this type of logic take a look at
uk.rec.boats.motor
--
Martin

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote:

I agree with Mike. What conceivable reason could there be for opposing it?
---
None at all, a good idea. I live in an area well supplied with allotments,
indeed they are so popular here that most secretaries have waiting lists for
plots. However, I don't see that many postings to this group from the
allotment holding fraternity. Perhaps if they had their own newsgroup,
experienced allotment gardeners might be encouraged to use it helping and
advising those who have newly started on a great pastime.

Aphodius

martin wrote:

Agreed. I would welcome the creation of the allotments group as that is my
*main* gardening interest - although I would also remain subscribed to
u.r.g.

I can't see the point of that. Explain what that gives you that you
haven't got already?

I skip a lot of threads in u.r.g. - not because they're not interesting,
simply because they don't interest me. A dedicated group would make things
a lot easier.

Hopefully a dedicated group would attract new posters who perhaps don't
think allotments come under "Gardening".

No criticism of u.r.g. intended here. I've been subscribed for *many* years
and have learnt a lot. Hopefully I'll continue for many more years :-)
--
Regards,

Tròy the Black Lab.

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:30:15 +0000, Troy wrote:

martin wrote:

Agreed. I would welcome the creation of the allotments group as that is my
*main* gardening interest - although I would also remain subscribed to
u.r.g.

I can't see the point of that. Explain what that gives you that you
haven't got already?

I skip a lot of threads in u.r.g. - not because they're not interesting,
simply because they don't interest me. A dedicated group would make things
a lot easier.

You'd still have to skip a lot of threads on urg if you subscribed to
both.


Hopefully a dedicated group would attract new posters who perhaps don't
think allotments come under "Gardening".

I doubt it, I suspect that far more people are subscribed to a list
than newsgroups


No criticism of u.r.g. intended here. I've been subscribed for *many* years
and have learnt a lot. Hopefully I'll continue for many more years :-)

I think it's a fantastic site for gardening information and it's
stuffed with helpful experts. Looking at other subgroups that overlap
an existing group, the probability is that they won't all subscribe to
an allotment group.
--
Martin

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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:42:42 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Martin Sykes" contains
these words:
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?

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

Charter of uk.rec.gardening
(Not Moderated)
To discuss gardening issues relevant to the UK. These will include
flowers, shrubs, trees, fruit & vegetables, lawns, houseplants,
beneficial insects & animals, soils, composting, design, location,
situation, seasons/times, hard structures (paths, greenhouses,
cloches, rockeries), ponds, tools & materials, weeds and pests &
diseases. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list.
In the absence of more appropriate, geographically specific
newsgroups, discussion of gardening in Eire, the Channel Islands and
the Isle of Man will also be welcome. Because there are climatic,
legal, cultural and other differences, discussion of gardening in
other parts of the world is OFF TOPIC (there are other regional
gardening newsgroups, and the global rec.gardens, one of which may be
more appropriate). Please note that this exclusion relates to subject
matter, not people, and posters from around the globe will be welcome
to participate in or initiate discussion of UK-relevant topics.

Specifically, please remember that there is no direct correlation
between US climate zones and the climate of the UK.



) complaining about URG discussing UK based
issues separately so why should it matter to URG if someone wants to discuss
allotments separately?

Agree. I see no substantial reason to oppose the formation of the new group.

--
Martin