----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


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.gardening.allotments

I have searched to find many allotment web sites and found that if
this
group was opened it would allow all allotment (and would be) allotment
holders to to exchange views in one convenient place. This in turn
would
give valued exchange of views by every visitor. To also pick up tips
and
sometimes tricks into allotment gardening.

CHARTER: uk.rec.gardening.allotments

To discuss allotment issues, planting times, tips on gardening, pest
controls and general allotment posts.

Advertising

Advertising is forbidden

Binaries & Formatting

Encoded binaries (e.g. pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which
a pointer may be posted. Cryptographic signatures (e.g. PGP)
may be used where authentication is important and should be as
short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text. HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited. To see how to make some
common newsreaders comply with this, read
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html.

Warning. Anyone posting contrary to this charter may be reported to
their
"postmaster" and/or Service Provider.

END CHARTER

PROCEDU

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until February 7th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.
Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group
Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in
uk.net.news.announce.
Please refer to this document if you have any questions about the
process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.gardening

Proponent:
Gary Poston

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 5.0i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBQBbQVWOfGXkh8vHZAQFJXgP/RVBhiiL5JhsfgJBb/EM9EfgCMh+I2tGr
liW1GCJFqQkj+pbgQIW2lsRfJWgJrKvWSYIgMf6KAqs6HmKEkL rBXdl6FwaVjDPd
Sjy/9yo34+NH6LYxyeSWNWvpnkqoPkQyzoASAqSs8GeseIQlji1+Oq KRArssGwt4
qqz2uk5Hai0=
=Rf/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Martin

The message
from martin contains these words:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Not until now, no.

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

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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:51:33 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

Not until now, no.

Odd, because it claims it was posted here.
--
Martin

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:05:09 +0000, Chris French and Helen Johnson
wrote:

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

I agree.

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

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?

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

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?

Mike

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:53:34 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" wrote:

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?

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

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?

The discussion *has* to be on unnc.
--
Martin

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:57:29 +0100, martin wrote:

~On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:53:34 +0000 (UTC), "Mike" wrote:
~
~ 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?
~
~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 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, but feel it is trivial to the more
~skilled subscriber and fail to ask.
~
~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?
~
~The discussion *has* to be on unnc.
~--
~Martin

Well at least this is one place where cross-posting is useful, then.
:-) I just tried to sub to unnc and there's thousands of posts, none
of which I want to spend hours downloading!

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.


--
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!

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.

"Mike" wrote in message ...

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

What you are talking about is a newbie / experianced urgler split
rather than an allotment / garden split tho. And i dont think having a
newbie group would work - no-one would know anything!
I am a newbie and i think a separate group is not a good idea. I have
been doing lots of mining and searching of urg via google over the
last few weeks. I have gone in searching for a query about the garden
and coming out with vast amounts of info i can put to use down my
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.

On 28 Jan 2004 02:52:19 -0800, (sahara)
wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message ...

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

What you are talking about is a newbie / experianced urgler split
rather than an allotment / garden split tho. And i dont think having a
newbie group would work - no-one would know anything!
I am a newbie and i think a separate group is not a good idea. I have
been doing lots of mining and searching of urg via google over the
last few weeks. I have gone in searching for a query about the garden
and coming out with vast amounts of info i can put to use down my
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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:35:59 +0100, martin wrote:

On 28 Jan 2004 02:52:19 -0800, (sahara)
wrote:

What you are talking about is a newbie / experianced urgler split
rather than an allotment / garden split tho. And i dont think having a
newbie group would work - no-one would know anything!
I am a newbie and i think a separate group is not a good idea. I have
been doing lots of mining and searching of urg via google over the
last few weeks. I have gone in searching for a query about the garden
and coming out with vast amounts of info i can put to use down my
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.

Ditto.

I mean, it's not like there's not enough space here ( bar when the
discussion gets to the political/anecdotal/wot I did on me hols stage
), and the possible departure of any experienced 'lottees'(?) would be
a great shame.

That said, I can see that these people may feel there's a need for a
forum which caters more to the organisational aspects rather than the
horticultural ones.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"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 ;-)

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

The message
from "Mike" contains these words:
Attributions not found

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.

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

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

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?

I agree with Mike. What conceivable reason could there be for opposing it?

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

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


"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?

which group? and who are they?

If stuff is crossposted to URG then everyone using URG will still see
exactly the same stuff as if it was posted direct.

What advantage will be gained?

It just allows the allotment group
to not see a load of stuff about houseplants, ornamentals
and public gardens for example.

They also won't see anything about vegetable gardening, which is what
allotment gardening is all about, unless they subscribe to urg too, in
which case they are back to square one. Perhaps they might escape pro
and anti blood sport rants but I doubt it.

Unless of course everyone made a habit of
crossposting back to them ;-)

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

--
Martin