In article , n
mapson.co.uk writes
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.

And how the heck do we get that to stick, since people no longer lurk
before posting?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , n
mapson.co.uk writes
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.

And how the heck do we get that to stick, since people no longer lurk
before posting?
--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Green wrote in message
...

The proponent is supposed to demonstrate a need and sufficient support
for a new group.

As I understand it, only if he wants to be uk.rec.gardening.allotments. if
he wants to be alt.allotments or anything else, the rules don't apply.

As for enough support, judging by the other responses he has that in spades
(pun intended). As for proving a need, I'd think it was enough that if all
he is interested in is allotments as a few people here have said, then
filtering out the 95% of other stuff which make up URG is reason enough.

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.

But I'd expect that most people who know a resonable amount about allotments
would subscribe to the new group. Therefore, it would be unecessary to
crosspost to URG as there would be no expertise there which wasn't also
reading the new group as well. The only loss would be to newbies posting
allotment questions to urg but as has happened frequently in the past a
quick redirection from a reqular would sort it out.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this thread now. I haven't heard any sensible
objections to the new group being formed and as far as I'm concerned it has
my full support for what it's worth.

--
Martin

Green wrote in message
...

The proponent is supposed to demonstrate a need and sufficient support
for a new group.

As I understand it, only if he wants to be uk.rec.gardening.allotments. if
he wants to be alt.allotments or anything else, the rules don't apply.

As for enough support, judging by the other responses he has that in spades
(pun intended). As for proving a need, I'd think it was enough that if all
he is interested in is allotments as a few people here have said, then
filtering out the 95% of other stuff which make up URG is reason enough.

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.

But I'd expect that most people who know a resonable amount about allotments
would subscribe to the new group. Therefore, it would be unecessary to
crosspost to URG as there would be no expertise there which wasn't also
reading the new group as well. The only loss would be to newbies posting
allotment questions to urg but as has happened frequently in the past a
quick redirection from a reqular would sort it out.

Anyway, I'm dropping out of this thread now. I haven't heard any sensible
objections to the new group being formed and as far as I'm concerned it has
my full support for what it's worth.

--
Martin

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


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.


ISTM though that little or no benefit is served in creating sub groups
with too low a volume. I think that if a group does not have enough
volume of posts then it just become s a 'ghost town' that no one
frequents.

Creating sub-groups does affect other groups - it could potentially
affect my enjoyment of urg.

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.

There are already mail lists that serve this purpose.

In term of news group creation, AIUI, there has to shown a need that
urg does not provide for this. the charter for urg certainly does cover
allotmenteering, and I've no evidence from the postings to urg that this
need is not already met.

I tend towards the creations of sub groups on the whole, and don't see
any need at the moment for the creation of this one.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

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


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.


ISTM though that little or no benefit is served in creating sub groups
with too low a volume. I think that if a group does not have enough
volume of posts then it just become s a 'ghost town' that no one
frequents.

Creating sub-groups does affect other groups - it could potentially
affect my enjoyment of urg.

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.

There are already mail lists that serve this purpose.

In term of news group creation, AIUI, there has to shown a need that
urg does not provide for this. the charter for urg certainly does cover
allotmenteering, and I've no evidence from the postings to urg that this
need is not already met.

I tend towards the creations of sub groups on the whole, and don't see
any need at the moment for the creation of this one.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

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


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.


ISTM though that little or no benefit is served in creating sub groups
with too low a volume. I think that if a group does not have enough
volume of posts then it just become s a 'ghost town' that no one
frequents.

Creating sub-groups does affect other groups - it could potentially
affect my enjoyment of urg.

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.

There are already mail lists that serve this purpose.

In term of news group creation, AIUI, there has to shown a need that
urg does not provide for this. the charter for urg certainly does cover
allotmenteering, and I've no evidence from the postings to urg that this
need is not already met.

I tend towards the creations of sub groups on the whole, and don't see
any need at the moment for the creation of this one.
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:21:16 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote:



Green wrote in message
.. .

The proponent is supposed to demonstrate a need and sufficient support
for a new group.

As I understand it, only if he wants to be uk.rec.gardening.allotments. if
he wants to be alt.allotments or anything else, the rules don't apply.

The RFD is for uk.rec.gardening.allotments and not anything else.

The rules always apply.

--
Martin

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

Can't say i see any need for it though

I agree.

I suppose we had better subscribe to uk.net.news.config and make our
views on the matter known.
--
Martin

Does that mean you are not in agreement with such newsgroup being set up,
and therefore are going to oppose it?

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

If so, why?

There have been numerous posters on this newsgroup who have asked advice
because they are new allotment holders. urg has a very knowledgeable
subscriber base

Yes. Their questions and the ensuing discussions have been most
interesting.

and I feel that some of the newbie allotment holders may
feel a little intimidated by the skills shown here and might not wish to
ask
what might be a serious question to them,

You have just admitted that "There have been numerous posters on this
newsgroup who have asked advice because they are new allotment holders. urg
has a very knowledgeable subscriber base", so what stops these newbies of
which you speak from asking their questions, like I do when I feel ignorant
about something?

but feel it is trivial to the more
skilled subscriber and fail to ask.

That is a totally unwarranted feeling.

I feel that this newsgroup should encourage an allotment newsgroup and
make
sure that any new allotment holder is made aware of it in a very helpful
way
and not a case of 'There's a newsgroup for you lot, ask your question
there,
newbie' Who knows, someone here might just even be an advisor for that
newsgroup as well, is there any harm in that?

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of separate
groups.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

Franz

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
...

"martin" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jan 2004 02:52:19 -0800, (sahara)
wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...

allotment. And visa versa. Which is great! If you split the groups i
would have to search in two separate places. Making my life more
difficult.

exactly my thoughts on the subject.
--
Martin

But if this group whoever they are, wants to start up a new group to
discuss
allotments between themselves, then who has a right to stop them doing it?
If stuff is crossposted to URG then everyone using URG will still see
exactly the same stuff as if it was posted direct. It just allows the
allotment group to not see a load of stuff about houseplants, ornamentals
and public gardens for example. Unless of course everyone made a habit of
crossposting back to them ;-)

On the contrary, I think that supporting this proposed group would be a
wanton disorganisation of the way gardening topics are handled in the
newsgroup structure at present. The likely outcomes are

(1) Shy newbies will be even more shy of posing questions to an overly
specialist newsgroup such as that being proposed here than they are said to
be of participating in uk.rec.gardening.

(2) The bulk of the post to the allotment group will in any case be
crossposted to urg.

(3) Te allotment group will, on its own, be a feeble group, because of the
specialisation.

Franz


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

"Martin Sykes" wrote in message
...
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.

I do understand why we should try to stop this diversionary move from
succeeding. The most likely outcome is either 2 newsgroups fully
crossposted or many of us missing out on interseting discussions on
allotment gardening.

Franz

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

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , n
mapson.co.uk writes
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.

And how the heck do we get that to stick, since people no longer lurk
before posting?

It does not matter whether the problem is handled this way or not. I find
it quite straightforward to know which threads not to read. In ninety
percent of the cases, the subject line gives all the clues I need, and in
the rest of the cases, just looking at the first contribution to a thread
tells me whether there is something in it for me.

Franz

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:38:13
uk.net.news.config Franz Heymann

"Mike" wrote in message
...

I suppose we had better subscribe to uk.net.news.config and make our
views on the matter known.

No, all you need to do is crosspost into unnc on an existing thread. I
will try to ensure any discussion is seen in urg too.

unnc is *not* the place for innocents at the moment stick to the
threads crossposted by sensible people into urg is my advice and make
sure your opinion is crossposted to unnc.

Does that mean you are not in agreement with such newsgroup being set up,
and therefore are going to oppose it?

I might.

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

No one has made proposals for those groups. Relax a little, please.
People in unnc *do* understand the ridiculous, promise.

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

Nothing, you are arguing to the wrong people.

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

We don't know that; the issue is "should the group be created" and "is
there a need for it" ?

I don't think it should be created and don't see a need -- urg may have
changed since I've been away from it but I will accept other people's
opinions.

[munch]

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of separate
groups.

It isn't about pointlessness -- if a number of people want the
..allotments group then they may have it. As someone who has followed
urg in the past I simply don't think the proposed group will work and
therefore argue against it.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

That is not your place and far to soon to say.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting

In article
"jane" writes:

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.

This is something that should be addressed in the group's charter, if it
is created: cross-posts to the sub-group AND the parent group ought to be
banned very specifically. (Says he, who regularly suffers postings from
idiots who think their chit-chat about mobile telephony is welcome in
uk.telecom as well as in uk.telecom.mobile.)

You might even want to consider a charter change to the parent group, if
the subgroup IS created, which also prohibits such cross-posts.
Something on-topic in a sub-group is rarely appropriate to the parent:
after all, the latter has cast off its off-spring to make its own way in
the world.

--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
"We can no longer stand apart from Europe if we would. Yet we are
untrained to mix with our neighbours, or even talk to them".
George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1919

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:38:13
uk.net.news.config Franz Heymann

"Mike" wrote in message
...

I suppose we had better subscribe to uk.net.news.config and make our
views on the matter known.

No, all you need to do is crosspost into unnc on an existing thread. I
will try to ensure any discussion is seen in urg too.

unnc is *not* the place for innocents at the moment stick to the
threads crossposted by sensible people into urg is my advice and make
sure your opinion is crossposted to unnc.

Does that mean you are not in agreement with such newsgroup being set up,
and therefore are going to oppose it?

I might.

I think it is a pile of codswallop. Just say to yourself:
uk.reg.gardening Exists
uk.rec.gardening.allottments Proposed

In that case why stop there, think of
uk.rec gardening.flowers
uk.rec.gardening.flowers.roses
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.deciduous
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen
uk.rec.gardening.shrubs.evergreen.hardy

No one has made proposals for those groups. Relax a little, please.
People in unnc *do* understand the ridiculous, promise.

Uk.rec.gardening is already a very active and interesting gardening
newsgroup. It has a considerable number of participants who are de facto
allotment gardeners, and there are many interesting posts on that topic.
What on earth stops other allotment gardeners from joining the gang and
thereby helping to make an even more interesing newsgroup of URG?

Nothing, you are arguing to the wrong people.

I will bet a penny to the usual pile of dung that every post to the proposed
new group will in any case be crossposted to URG.

We don't know that; the issue is "should the group be created" and "is
there a need for it" ?

I don't think it should be created and don't see a need -- urg may have
changed since I've been away from it but I will accept other people's
opinions.

[munch]

On the contrary, I would urge urglers to write in pointing out the essential
crassness of splitting off gardening interests into a multitude of separate
groups.

It isn't about pointlessness -- if a number of people want the
..allotments group then they may have it. As someone who has followed
urg in the past I simply don't think the proposed group will work and
therefore argue against it.

And I would urge all urglers that, if this new group comes into existence,
they should avoid having anything to do with it, in order to hasten its
demise.

That is not your place and far to soon to say.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting