BIOSCI newsgroup

Foteos Macrides MACRIDES at WFEB2.BITNET
Thu Mar 5 23:35:00 EST 1992


>I read bionet.agroforestry for a while before proposing bionet.botany
>(now bionet.plants) and I was disappointed how little was posted.  I've
>had a reasonable e-mail response from bionet.* and sci.bio.* people who
>are interested in bionet.plants but nothing like the 80 supporters that
>would be needed to ensure the creation of a new group.
>
>Maybe bionet.agroforestry *is* the place to discuss plant-related
>issues but I feel that the name 'agroforestry' is open to the same sort
>of mis-interpretation as bionet.botany was (ie. more specific than the
>original proposers of this group actually intended).  Could we perhaps
>move the discussion of plant related issues over to bionet.agroforestry?
>
>If a critical mass of botanists, plant biologists, or whatever plant
>people want to call themselves start to read and post to
>bionet.agroforestry we can all benefit without the creation of a new
>group.  I'd like to hear what the bionet.agroforestry people think
>about this before we go any further.
>
>If the consensus is that it is a good idea to move over to
>bionet.agroforestry then I would like to advertise the existence of a
>plant orientated discussion there on other related news groups or
>mailing lists.  I've had enough newsgroup politics for now and I'd like
>to progress onto scientific matters.
>
>Tony Travis

        I'm not a bionet.agroforestry person and I hope you don't consider
this more politics of an unconstructive sort, but I think that both your field
and BioSci would benefit more from the creation of bionet.plant (and start of
a plant hierarchy) with a committed person such as you promoting it, than by
simply settling into an existing forum which had only 76 messages in 1991.
Though forestry considers animals as well as plants w.r.t. an ecosystem (and
'plants' doesn't formally encompass bacteria, as mentioned much earlier in the
botany/plants discussion w.r.t. long-range hierarchical considerations),
discussions of the sort which were intended to occur in bionet.agroforestry by
and large could occur in bionet.plant, and are more likely to occur in a forum
that has action and committment.

        From the earlier discussion I presume the statement of purpose and/or
invitations to join the discussion of it in bionet.general/BIOFORUM will be
sent to sci.bio and several plant oriented Email lists.  Though they may not
all have contacted you personally, it's hard to imagine that there are not at
least 80 plant oriented biologists here and there on the net who would favor
creation of a common forum with both USENET and Email distribution mechanisms.
The new policy (if approved) will add another "40 days and nights of rain"
before bionet.plant could be created, but it will have been done right and
with a sunnier future.  In the meantime, bionet.general/BIOFORUM is for
discussions which do not yet have a dedicated forum, so... ride this arc!

        Cheers!
                                Fote

=========================================================================
 Foteos Macrides           Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
 MACRIDES at WFEB2.BITNET     222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

    Lobbying for votes is permissible *within* bionet.general/BIOFORUM
      HURRY UP -- Vote YES on the policy proposal and for Option 2!!
   Start up an interesting discussion on plants to wet our appetites!!!

=========================================================================



More information about the Bioforum mailing list