RFD: sci.bio.ecology.esa (2nd Attempt)

dr at ducvax.auburn.edu dr at ducvax.auburn.edu
Fri May 28 20:17:39 EST 1993

In article <1993May28.174938.1 at ducvax.auburn.edu>, dr at ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> [...deletion of introductory and RFD text...]
>This may seem more of a procedural question than a comment on the
>RFD per se, but the announcement list appears to be limited to:
>    news.announce.newgroups, news.groups,
>    bit.listserv.ecolog-l,
>    sci.bio,
>    talk.environment
>Why does the announcement list include TALK.environment but not 
>SCI.environment?  There are several other usenet groups which also
>would be likely to have a strong interest in the renamed group.
>A more glaring omission is BIONET.general - this would seem to be a 
>natural resource for knowledgeable commentary: Bionet subscribers are
>primarily professionals in the field of biology, and generally have 
>some experience in the usenet community.  Surely their comments should
>be solicited regarding the advantages vs. disadvantages of renaming.
>     D.R.  [...sig stuf deleted...]
>ps. The above constitutes my origional post:  Una Smith's 
>    followup is in bit.listserv.ecolog-l and news.groups, 
>    as will be my response.  I have set followups to include 
>    bionet.general, bit.listserv.ecolog-l, and news.groups
>    to encourage the reception of knowledgable commentary.

I should add that in Una Smith's followup, she answers my 
question regarding *.environment:  "Talk.environment was 
added by the moderator of news.announce.newgroups."  She
also raises some interesting ideas, and _most importantly_,
states (I've reformated the line length) :

      us> Now is the time to voice any objections and 
      us> suggest alternatives, so others can see your 
      us> point of view and decide for themselves how 
      us> to vote on this issue.

This echos an earlier email exchange; whatever differences of
opinion we may have regarding particular issues of renaming, it
seems clear we agree on the most important, and general issue:  

 * The matter should be as fully discussed as is feasible,   *
 * so that interested parties can make an informed decision. *

I've a number of points I think should be made before a vote
is taken; I also think some of those points may be of general 
interest to the bionet community.  Finally, I think that the
scrutiny of arguments and reasoned presentation of counter-
arguments is desirable; I therefore welcome and solicit such 
scrutiny (particularly of _my_ arguments!).

David Roller  |    Bitnet = dr at auducvax           | "Sometimes it is hard
Parker Hall   |  Internet = dr at ducvax.auburn.edu  |  to form an opinion..."
Auburn Univ.  |  Voicenet = (205) 844-4512        |   -- Charles Darwin     

More information about the Bioforum mailing list