🚀 go-pugleaf

smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) writes:

> Why not re-organize the bit.listserv domain into topical sub-domains? 
> How about dropping the "listserv" part and having instead
> 	bit.bio.*
> 	bit.edu.*

Since there are already global USENET top-level hierarchies for these
categories, why not take the process one step further, and replace "bit.*"
with the corresponding, existing, USENET non-bit.* name?

> 	bit.med.*

sci.med.*

> 	bit.music.*

rec.music.*

> There are so many bit.listserv groups now that I think this would be
> a very good thing.  It would help people find their way among the now
> 200-odd bit.listserv newsgroups, and would help Usenet administrators
> pick and choose which to carry.

Yes, very much.

The disadvantage to this, of course, is that it would require going through
the standard USENET gauntlet: RFD, flame, CFV, flame, vote, flame, create,
flame.....

In the long run, though, I think it would be very much worth it.  The bit.*
hierarchy is an artifact of the technology, unrelated to the topics, and
things like that are always barriers to the users and to the admins.

Even if the conversion didn't go this far, I do agree that a renaming to
bit.<subject>.<list> would be a definite improvement over the current
setup.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."

I proposed:

>> Why not re-organize the bit.listserv domain into topical sub-domains? 
>> How about dropping the "listserv" part and having instead
>> 	bit.bio.*
>> 	bit.edu.*

Tom Fitzgerald <fitz@wang.com> asked:

>Since there are already global USENET top-level hierarchies for these
>categories, why not take the process one step further, and replace "bit.*"
>with the corresponding, existing, USENET non-bit.* name?

That is the ideal solution, but as you point out it involves a lot of
work.  That's not a good excuse, but here are two more: 

1.  Many bit.listserv groups may be too specialized to generate the
necessary number of votes to pass in Usenet, in which case they're stuck
in the bit.listserv hierarchy.  So why not organize bit.listserv anyway?
It might help to prepare/position groups for future entry into mainstream
Usenet.

2. It has been my experience that it is as much work to convince the
subscribers to a gated mailing list that it's safe to join the mainstream
Usenet as it was to convince them to try a bit.listserv gateway in the
first place.  That's a lot of EXTRA work, above and beyond the Usenet 
group creation procedure.

[...]
>The disadvantage to this, of course, is that it would require going through
>the standard USENET gauntlet: RFD, flame, CFV, flame, vote, flame, create,
>flame.....

Academic groups (which most listserv mailing lists are) rarely face many
flames, so the process tends to be smooth.  But it is still a lot of work
for someone...

>In the long run, though, I think it would be very much worth it.  The bit.*
>hierarchy is an artifact of the technology, unrelated to the topics, and
>things like that are always barriers to the users and to the admins.

I agree entirely.  Thus this proposal:  a step in the right direction.

Whether done within bit.listserv or not, it will still involve discussion
in each and every group concerned (hopefully the discussions can be moved
to bit.admin to relieve the burden on e-mail subscribers who don't care
where the gateway is put).

-- 

      Una Smith      Biology Department       smith-una@yale.edu
                     Yale University
                     New Haven, CT  06511