🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <87k7b4g8ln.fsf@O.Q.NET>, Brad Allen wrote:

> One thing I forgot to say which I assumed people would infer from my
> writing was that you haven't considered the categories very carefully.
> The eloquent words of someone else who said you didn't offer charters
> for the new groups were well said.

Agreed.  I suspect a minority of discussions in ba.internet fall under the 
provisions of the original charter.  Thus, I felt that having "internet"
under a second-level hierarchy name like "tech/technology" would more
properly account for it.  However, I did not put sufficient thought
into what would go elsewhere.  The only thing I could see worth seperating
out would be the wireless-based discussion.

> ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty
>                         around the Bay Area.
> 
> Ok, so it's about wireless *connectivity* technology, now; I take it
> water plumbing is part of that?

With connectivity mispelled, how embarrassing (for me).  We could easily
nail this down by labelling it as "wireless RF".  Under the current
organization, "ba.wireless" may not be a bad suggestion.

> Someone said that "ba.tech.internet" would not be about cell phones.
> Excuse me, but what about internetworking excludes cellular
> telephones, or telephones of any type?  Are we talking specifically
> about the DARPA-ARPA derived IP-associated Internet, or the
> DARPA-ARPA-RFC822/UUCP-mail/Fido/CSNET/BITNET/etc. email Internet,
> which is what Internet also used to mean?

When the discussions don't center around using telephony for IP-based
connectivity.

> BTW, who originally wrote the ba.internet charter?  If I wrote it, it
> would probably have been in response to IP and email internetworking.
> Ask Eric E. Fair <fair@Clock.Org>; he might have done it, or know or
> known who did.

A "Michael C. Berch".
It's archived in the control message, which I'll reproduce in full: