🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45b6e1f9.0306290705.2621d364@posting.google.com>, Bradley W. Allen wrote:

>> Sam
> 
> A.  Instead of the overly large "technology" which is difficult to type
>     and takes extra bandwidth, we could use "tech", such as ba.tech.internet.

That was in my original proposal, but the maintainer of the ba.* hierarchy
that I consulted suggested I spell it out instead.

> B.  We could consider further abbreviations, including but not limited to:
>     tech->t; internet->inet; wireless->who knows but shorter; etc.
>     e.g., ba.t.inet; some of these further abbreviations would be
>     appropriate, and some would not (i.e., ba.t is not descriptive enough
>     for typical USENET group names), whereas some abbreviations would
>     still make some sense, such as ba.tech.inet for "internet".  This would
>     not necessarily be a good idea, since "inet" could mean "internet"
>     OR "intranet".  Making the group name "ba.tech.net" wouldn't be
>     about internetworking, then, either.  Ok, I'm liking my point B less
>     and less.  Nevertheless, I think it's always important to optimize
>     abbreviation sizes.  "technology.internet" is just way way way too big.

I think this gets overly pedantic and some of the descriptive flavor is lost.

> C.  "misc" is meaningless; what does it mean?  A better concept and word
>     would be "ba.tech.other", for everything Bay Area Technical which is
>     not ba.tech.internet or ba.tech.telephone.  Another alternative
>     is "ba.tech" rather than "ba.tech.other" for all the unspecific stuff.
>     I hate "misc" categories, because they are not categories.

Leaving a dangling second-level without a third level is bad practice.
.misc follows convention, as well.

> D.  "tel" could be used for "telephone".
>     "comm" could be used for "communications".
>     "ba.tech.comm.radio" could mean wireless communications.
>     "ba.tech.dcom.radio" could mean wireless data communications.

I just wanted to shake things up a bit, not burn the whole thing down.
But yeah, logic does demand that ba.broadcast also move under the "tech"
hierarchy, which is at best, problematic, given the opinions I've
already seen.
> 
> E.  Has an enumeration of average posts per topic been made?

That might be worthwhile.  Not by me, no.

> Ok, now I'll read others' responses.

No one else is really for it, based on the responses so far.

Sam
-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of course, there are limits to diversity, earth is a single point of 
        failure for the foreseeable future."   -- Sean Donelan
---------------------------------------------------------------------