🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38EBC267.BC7042C5@richmond.infi.net>,
  "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@richmond.infi.net> wrote:
> Michael Malak <malak@claygency.com> wrote:
> >
> > Crossposted: dc.biking,dc.driving,dc.general,dc.config
> >
> > OK, it's been nearly a year since my failed attempt to get
> > dc.urban-planning approved.  So let's try again -- those who have
> > been concerned with cross-posts to dc.driving and dc.biking should
> > not let the discussion in dc.config die this time.  This is your
> > chance to change the situation.
>
> Michael, thanks for your efforts.  The dc.driving newsgroup pretty
> much functions as a 'dc.transportation' newsgroup, with discussion of
> not just driving in the D.C. area, but also roads, public transit,
> bicycling, airports and other general transportation and urban
> planning topics in the D.C. area.  So I wonder if another newsgroup
> would be necessary, especially since non-crossposted posts in
> dc.driving usually number less than 20 posts per day.

Thank you for responding.

You allude to a good point, which is that if dc.urban-planning is
created, would there be sufficient traffic (no pun intended) left in
dc.driving?

It's more difficult to take statistics on total non-cross-postings
using Deja.com -- articles must be counted by hand.  So I picked a
couple of random days and counted:

  Date    Not cross-posted (*)  All    %
  ======  ====================  ===  ===
  Mar 31                    21   59   36
  Feb 10                    17   48   35%

(*) Not cross-posted to groups outside of driving-related groups.  I
    considered cross-posts to rec.autos.driving and to md.general, to
    take a couple of examples, as being not cross-posted.

The non-cross-posted articles tended to be about driving laws, speeds,
following distance, technique, as well as driver-to-driver election-
related lobbying.

It appears that there *would* be enough traffic left in dc.driving,
although the nature of the group would change significantly (2/3 of
it would move to dc.urban-planning).

I see dc.urban-planning as a non-biased "advocacy" group.  In the
comp.* hierarchy, when people start getting religious about a
particular computer, OS, or programming language, an "advocacy" group
is created to handle all the debate.

Some people (such as myself) enjoy debate.  But not everyone does.
Some people like to share information about whatever it is they
have already chosen, as opposed to debating the act of choosing.
In the RFP, I mentioned that people have complained in dc.biking,
but there have also been complaints in dc.driving over the past
year that it is "everything except about driving".  That's not
exactly true -- it's only 2/3 not about driving in DC.

The other issue is that the name "dc.driving" does not lend itself to
some of the topics listed in the charter for dc.urban-planning, most
notably Metro (which is currently handled mostly by dc.general and
occasionally by dc.biking) but also zoning, land use, and
environmental issues.

In a sense, the debate about transportation and land use in the DC
area is a nomad (and a big one at that) looking for a home.  The people
in dc.biking are a little more vocal about cross-posts than dc.driving,
so the net result is that dc.biking gets some cross-posts and
dc.driving gets most of them.  dc.general also gets some cross-posts.
But not one group gets all the posts.  A reader has to monitor all
three (including dc.general, which has its own cross-posting problems!)
in order to cover all transportation and land use issues.

So if dc.urban-planning is approved, I see the relationship between it
and dc.driving being the following:
* Posts regarding driving laws, driving technqiue, equipment, and
  driver-to-driver political advocacy would be posted to dc.driving.
* Posts regarding new road construction would be cross-posted to
  dc.driving and dc.urban-planning, but as soon as debate about
  transportation mode choice or land use enters the picture,
  dc.driving would have to be trimmed from the Newsgroups line.
* Posts regarding transportation modes and land use would be posted
  to dc.urban-planning.

Again, the idea is to

1) Concentrate advocacy discussion into a single newsgroup
   dc.urban-planning, and leave driver-to-driver and
   bicyclist-to-bicyclist information in dc.driving and dc.biking
   respectively.

2) Provide a designated place to discuss WMATA/Metro, land use
   issues, and environmental issues, which currently have no
   official place other than dc.general.

--
Michael Malak
malak@claygency.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.