🚀 go-pugleaf

Camilla Cracchiolo (camilla@primenet.com) wrote:
: I see no reason why we can't do what sci.med has done.  The creation of
: sci.med.nursing, sci.med.immunology, etc. did not cause sci.med to become
: sci.med.misc.

: Actually, I had a hell of a time finding sci.psychology.misc after they
: reorganized their hierarchy.  I suggest we keep sci.med.nursing and just
: add the other two groups.


If the proponents had ever bothered to come up with a proposal they could
rationalize I would agree with you. At this level, the renaming of
sci.med.nursing is probably not necessary. (Remember that the one practical
reason for doing this is for sites which are taking a limited newsfeed 
which specifically includes only the original group will not automatically
get the new sub-groups automatically; they will have to modify their
configuration file. Since the sites which fall into this category probably
are limited in the amount of support you have a real possibility of
making the new groups unavailable. If the root group is renamed to .misc
then they will receive all of the groups with no modifications required).

Thus my take on .misc has been that if there is a real possibility that a
significiant possibility exists that the group is being taken selectively
then I tend to support .misc. (Well, if the proponents have actually down
a breakdown analysis such that what is left is truely miscellanious then
I have no problem with the creation of the group). Since I doubt many
people are taking only sci.med.nursing without taking the rest of sci.med
I see no reason to rename the base group.

Now, given this, I am also against the proposal since there is been no
justification that significant traffic on emergency nursing and student
nursing exist. I also had the question which was never answered as to if
other groups might be justified. Since they were never willing/able to
provide the data as to how much of the existing traffic would move to their
new groups, I voted no and for that reason I urge other people to vote no.


rick