On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:25:22 +0000, Chris French and Helen Johnson
wrote:

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.

Don't forget to copy unnc!
--
Martin