🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <slrnbffk8a.12p9.the@wopr.bestII.com> on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 04:18:18 -0000,
Sam Habash <usenet@bestII.com> wrote:

>This is a formal proposal marked to the attention of those that maintain
>the ba.* hierarchy.
>
>It seems that many of the recent discussions that have appeared in ba.internet 
>hae been mostly off-charter, at least with respect to the original newgroup.  
>Rather than covering Internet-specific topics pertaining to the Bay Area, we 
>have seen discussions cover the gamut between spam abatement, wireless phone 
>connectivity, and whether Microsoft was somewhat evil or totally evil.  Only 
>occasionally have these topics veered towards Bay Area specific examples.  One 
>worthy counter argument made in the earlier round of discussion was that the 
>ba.* hierarchy covers a broad range of subjects that the SF Bay Area residents
>who frequent these groups can participate in, but in my mind there is really no 
>good argument for excluding non-residents from participating.
>
>Thus, I feel that ba.internet should be discontinued,

You should know that there's no accepted way to do that.

>and the subject matter spun
>off into a new "ba.technology" subhierarchy:
>
>ba.technology.misc	Discussions about Bay Area technology-related issues.
>ba.technology.internet	Discussions about Bay Area Internet connectivity.
>ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty around the Bay Area.

Heaven help us.

This is a joke, right?  You can't be serious.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

It's fine the way it is. It's all about the Internet and related
technologies and most here are from the Bay Area.

In article <slrnbffk8a.12p9.the@wopr.bestII.com>, usenet@bestII.com (Sam 
Habash) writes...
> This is a formal proposal marked to the attention of those that maintain
> the ba.* hierarchy.

[snippage] 
 
> Thus, I feel that ba.internet should be discontinued, and the subject matter spun
> off into a new "ba.technology" subhierarchy:
> 
> ba.technology.misc	Discussions about Bay Area technology-related issues.
> ba.technology.internet	Discussions about Bay Area Internet connectivity.
> ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty around the Bay Area.


My thoughts as follows:

1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
   it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
   crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
   else.  Habash himself hardly ever posts a message in ba.internet 
   these days if it isn't to snipe at either Navas or myself.  
   This is for starters.

2) ba.internet is a relatively high-traffic group, such decisions
   as removal of such a group should not be taken lightly.

3) Personally while I can see some rationalization for the change,
   I'm afraid that the fragmentation of the group from 1 to 3
   will reduce the quantity of posting into any particular group
   to a point below "critical mass" and result in a die-off of
   activity and participation.


(Since most of the affected parties, including myself, don't make
a habit of reading ba.config, I have restored ba.internet to the
group list)


-- 
*  If you listen to cockpit voice recorders from fly-by-wire aircraft that    *
*  are about to crash, then what you tend to hear is the same sort of things  *
*  that people say to their PCs.  "How do you stop it doing that?  What did   *
*  we do last time it did that?"                                              *
*                              -- Ian Utting                                  *
*                                                                             *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkusenet64 @  ekahuna27 . com   *
*  Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *

In article <MPG.1962a528c2a5570b989e04@corp.supernews.com>,
 Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

> 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
>    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
>    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
>    else.

In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
for group name-change proposals.

> 2) ba.internet is a relatively high-traffic group, such decisions
>    as removal of such a group should not be taken lightly.

Far more practical would be to form the other groups and see if the 
traffic migrates. However, I see no compelling reason to form those new 
groups.

> 3) Personally while I can see some rationalization for the change,
>    I'm afraid that the fragmentation of the group from 1 to 3
>    will reduce the quantity of posting into any particular group
>    to a point below "critical mass" and result in a die-off of
>    activity and participation.

Or, there will just end up being a lot of cross-posting, making the same 
traffic just that much more cumbersome.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

In article <MPG.1962a528c2a5570b989e04@corp.supernews.com>, Philip J Koenig wrote:
> My thoughts as follows:
> 
> 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
>    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
>    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
>    else.  Habash himself hardly ever posts a message in ba.internet 
>    these days if it isn't to snipe at either Navas or myself.  
>    This is for starters.

Yeah, even before my propsal (as incomplete as it was, according
to Ken) I wasn't entirely sold on the idea myself.  Which is probably
enough reason to kill it, considering nobody has yet expressed any
enthusiasm for it (I wasn't really expecting much, to be honest)

Your characterization is probably not entirely inaccurate, but it 
*is* certainly true that many of the messages posted in ba.internet 
aren't on-topic for that newsgroup, making it difficult to participate
in any meaningful sense.  You reserve the right to be bothered by 
this, which is perfectly fair.  I will make no bones about having 
little interest in ba.technology.misc (or whatever we call it), 
which is why I really haven't participated much besides to snipe.  
But I would really like to participate in the "proper" group, if 
you know what I mean.  

> 2) ba.internet is a relatively high-traffic group, such decisions
>    as removal of such a group should not be taken lightly.

No removal should ever be.  Even ba.jobs.offered (considered a
cesspool) wasn't.

> 3) Personally while I can see some rationalization for the change,
>    I'm afraid that the fragmentation of the group from 1 to 3
>    will reduce the quantity of posting into any particular group
>    to a point below "critical mass" and result in a die-off of
>    activity and participation.

That's a valid concern.  Maybe a better idea would be to more actively 
encourage folks to remain on-topic in the current newsgroup.  However,
that also could be construed to reduce the quantity (dunno about quality)
of posts, due to the possible chilling effect any conforming suggestion
tends to have.

> (Since most of the affected parties, including myself, don't make
> a habit of reading ba.config, I have restored ba.internet to the
> group list)

That's fine.  I don't think ba.config was seeing very much activity,
though clearly it has watchful eyes from above.

--Sam 

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

John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> writes:

> > 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
> >    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
> >    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
> >    else.

> In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
> for group name-change proposals.

You mean ala comp.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom.telecom.tech?  I voted
for that one only because I got sick of the moderator (Pat ?, can't
even recall his last name now) scrbbling all over the group.  This
is a similar situation, but I don't know if a similar solution will
accomplish the same thing here.

The way ba.internet currently operates is everyone picks a thread
and hammers away it with pretty much anything and everything.  Then
it eventually dies a slow death, and then the next thread comes along
and the same thing happens over again.

I personally don't care to slog through quite that much off-charter
crud, and I think something which deals that would be good to do.

But then having been at this since the 1980s I know trying to move
anything like this is damn near impossible - unless, I suppose, the
group gets nuked and others are created to replace it.

I expect there will be too much opposition to get that done... so it
is probably wise to comtemplate some other solution(s) to the problems
some have with some of the goings on here...

Billy Y..

In article <bdb7bi$9pq$1@reader1.panix.com>, abuse@MIX.COM wrote:

> John Higdon <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> writes:
> 
> > > 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
> > >    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
> > >    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
> > >    else.
> 
> > In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
> > for group name-change proposals.
> 
> You mean ala comp.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom.telecom.tech?  I voted
> for that one only because I got sick of the moderator (Pat ?, can't
> even recall his last name now) scrbbling all over the group.  This
> is a similar situation, but I don't know if a similar solution will
> accomplish the same thing here.

Hey, I'm willing to fess up. But in addition to that being a grudge 
match, there was a moderated group involved in which there was perceived 
tyranny involved. No such condition, perceived or real exists here. 

> The way ba.internet currently operates is everyone picks a thread
> and hammers away it with pretty much anything and everything.  Then
> it eventually dies a slow death, and then the next thread comes along
> and the same thing happens over again.

Sounds like Usenet, all right.

> I personally don't care to slog through quite that much off-charter
> crud, and I think something which deals that would be good to do.

Shuffling the newsgroup names isn't going to accomplish anything in that 
regard.

> But then having been at this since the 1980s I know trying to move
> anything like this is damn near impossible - unless, I suppose, the
> group gets nuked and others are created to replace it.
> 
> I expect there will be too much opposition to get that done... so it
> is probably wise to comtemplate some other solution(s) to the problems
> some have with some of the goings on here...

Actually, I don't see anything going on here that doesn't go on in every 
other well-attended newsgroup.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

In article <no-spam-5543FD.19262524062003@equine.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon  <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1962a528c2a5570b989e04@corp.supernews.com>,
> Philip J. Koenig <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>> 1) It's an "OK" idea, not a great idea, and it bothers me that
>>    it seems to have been motivated more by virtue of a personal
>>    crusade (Habash's vis-a-vis John Navas, mostly) than anything
>>    else.
>In my fifteen years experience on Usenet, that's often the sole reason 
>for group name-change proposals.

My experience on Usenet suggests that your experience on Usenet is
fairly shallow.

rone
-- 
Imagine Garrison Keillor separating Humphrey Socialists from members of
a rural militia during a basement political rally/Lutefisk boil in the
basement of a small Lutheran church.
		- Matt Marchese <mattm@sgi.com>, on politics in Wisconsin

>The way ba.internet currently operates is everyone picks a thread
>and hammers away it with pretty much anything and everything.  Then
>it eventually dies a slow death, and then the next thread comes along
>and the same thing happens over again.

That's pretty much the way that *all* of Usenet operates.

---

Never assume malice in that which can be explained by ineptitude.


     I am: Mom, Attorney, Professor, Advocate for Fathers and Against Spam
			 http://www.annepmitchell.com

[POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <slrnbfi5ii.1gj1.the@wopr.bestII.com> on Wed, 25 Jun 2003 03:26:10 -0000,
Sam Habash <usenet@bestII.com> wrote:

>...  it 
>*is* certainly true that many of the messages posted in ba.internet 
>aren't on-topic for that newsgroup, making it difficult to participate
>in any meaningful sense.  ...

I disagree.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>

In article <rone.bdbdm9$2jgi$1@ennui.org>,
 "epicanthic folderol" <^#*&$@ennui.org> wrote:

> My experience on Usenet suggests that your experience on Usenet is
> fairly shallow.

And that comment tells me what I need to know about you.

Thanks.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | SF:  +1 415 428-COWS
+1 408 264 4115 |     Anytown, USA    | FAX: +1 408 264 4407

In article <no-spam-422BA9.08024225062003@equine.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon  <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> wrote:
>In article <rone.bdbdm9$2jgi$1@ennui.org>,
> "epicanthic folderol" <^#*&$@ennui.org> wrote:
>> My experience on Usenet suggests that your experience on Usenet is
>> fairly shallow.
>And that comment tells me what I need to know about you.

What did you need to know about me, anyway?

rone
-- 
Imagine Garrison Keillor separating Humphrey Socialists from members of
a rural militia during a basement political rally/Lutefisk boil in the
basement of a small Lutheran church.
		- Matt Marchese <mattm@sgi.com>, on politics in Wisconsin

In article <rone.bdcm2i$181$1@ennui.org>, ^#*&$@ennui.org (epicanthic folderol) 
writes...
> In article <no-spam-422BA9.08024225062003@equine.announcetech.com>,
> John Higdon  <no-spam@amadeus.kome.com> wrote:
> >In article <rone.bdbdm9$2jgi$1@ennui.org>,
> > "epicanthic folderol" <^#*&$@ennui.org> wrote:
> >> My experience on Usenet suggests that your experience on Usenet is
> >> fairly shallow.
> >And that comment tells me what I need to know about you.
> 
> What did you need to know about me, anyway?
> 
> rone


Shoe size?
 

-- 
*  If you listen to cockpit voice recorders from fly-by-wire aircraft that    *
*  are about to crash, then what you tend to hear is the same sort of things  *
*  that people say to their PCs.  "How do you stop it doing that?  What did   *
*  we do last time it did that?"                                              *
*                              -- Ian Utting                                  *
*                                                                             *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkusenet64 @  ekahuna27 . com   *
*  Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org> writes:

> >The way ba.internet currently operates is everyone picks a thread
> >and hammers away it with pretty much anything and everything.  Then
> >it eventually dies a slow death, and then the next thread comes along
> >and the same thing happens over again.

> That's pretty much the way that *all* of Usenet operates.

I would not go so far as to say all of it, but yes some
significant part of it does I'm sure.

Which in this case raises the question of why even bother with
a charter for the group if it is not going to be observed?

Billy Y..

In article <bddveu$8it$1@reader1.panix.com>,  <abuse@MIX.COM> wrote:
>Which in this case raises the question of why even bother with
>a charter for the group if it is not going to be observed?

I'll thank you to stop making sense.  As many have already pointed out
to me, there's no place for that in Usenet.  You'd think that after
all these years, i should know better than to try to be sensible.

rone
-- 
Imagine Garrison Keillor separating Humphrey Socialists from members of
a rural militia during a basement political rally/Lutefisk boil in the
basement of a small Lutheran church.
		- Matt Marchese <mattm@sgi.com>, on politics in Wisconsin

> ba.technology.misc	Discussions about Bay Area technology-related issues.
> ba.technology.internet	Discussions about Bay Area Internet connectivity.
> ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty around the Bay Area.
> 
> 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.

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.

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.

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.

E.  Has an enumeration of average posts per topic been made?

Ok, now I'll read others' responses.

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ulmo@Q.Net (Bradley W. Allen) writes:

> 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.
> 
> E.  Has an enumeration of average posts per topic been made?
> 
> Ok, now I'll read others' responses.

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.

e.g., since an old plow is doubtless wireless technology, does it mean
that it is for discussion here?  If so, I wonder why; even though my
grandfather helped invent various food farm plant picking machinery
for use in California, the wonderful furtile valley of ba is ridden
with asphalt, cement, buildings, and other annoyingly nonagricultural
waste by-products (like people and their cars, from the point of view
of a farmer and his plow).  Do we get into discussions of implements
of husbandry here?  I'd rather not; I come here for something totally
different.

Actually, I'm hard-pressed to think of any wireless technology.  What
is wireless technology?

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?


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?

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.

> > Ok, now I'll read others' responses.
> 
> No one else is really for it, based on the responses so far.
> 
> Sam

I don't see the need, either, although I'm not technically against
well-executed maintenance.  IOW, since the news.* maintainers have
introduced new standards since I was taught to create newsgroup names,
I disagree about the execution (ba.technology instead of ba.tech;
ba.tech.misc instead of ba.tech; etc.), and therefore don't support
changes that would add things like
"ba.reallylargelongnameformankindwellthoughtoutcreationsology.reallylargelongnameforthatdarpaarpaipinternetandmaybeemailthing"
and
"ba.reallylargelongnameformankindwellthoughtoutcreationsology.miss"
myself.  Oh well.

I'm one of those people that swore that "Distribution:" ought to be
supported, and that local groups didn't make sense, except where their
scope could not be global (such as institutional, such as su.*).  Of
course, that's not what happened.

In article <45b6e1f9.0306290705.2621d364@posting.google.com>, Ulmo@Q.Net 
(Bradley W. Allen) writes...

> > ba.technology.misc	Discussions about Bay Area technology-related issues.
> > ba.technology.internet	Discussions about Bay Area Internet connectivity.
> > ba.technology.wireless	Discussions about wireless connectivty around the Bay Area.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.



Short names are very helpful for web URL's because users often
have to type them in.  Personally I don't think they're very 
important for Usenet newsgroup names which are almost never
typed-in by most readers except for possibly the very first 
time they read a group.  (With my own newsreader, I virtually 
never type a newsgroup name.)

The downside of ambiguity is a much worse evil than a longer name,
as far as I'm concerned.  Especially since "ba.technology.wireless"
would actually be one of the shorter newsgroup names these days.


Anyway, I still think the overall ba.technology split idea is a 
non-starter anyway.


-- 
*  If you listen to cockpit voice recorders from fly-by-wire aircraft that    *
*  are about to crash, then what you tend to hear is the same sort of things  *
*  that people say to their PCs.  "How do you stop it doing that?  What did   *
*  we do last time it did that?"                                              *
*                              -- Ian Utting                                  *
*                                                                             *
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces:  pjkusenet64 @  ekahuna27 . com   *
*  Simple answers are for simple minds.  Try a new way of looking at things.  *

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: