Why ... top-level hierarchy?
una at doliolum.biology.yale.edu
Mon Aug 22 20:07:06 EST 1994
Peter Trei <ptrei at bistromath.mitre.org> wrote:
>* Why does bionet.* exist as a top level hierarchy: Why aren't these
> groups under sci.bio?
Sci.bio, and much of the "big 7" culture already existed when
bionet.* was established. All newsgroup control messages for
sci.* groups are handled by one person: to create a newsgroup
there, David Kristofferson would have to follow the procedures
established by that administrator.
>* What's the history behind this? How long has bionet been around?
The mailing lists (a few of them) have been around since before
late 1986 (when I got involved), and I believe it was Spring 1987
when the hierarchy was established.
>* Did it experience resistance or propagation problems when it was
> created? It's still only around 50%.
It's sometimes been very slow going. Princeton got the hierarchy
almost at once, because I petitioned for it. Duke University did
not get the hierarchy until 1991, when I had to make my way up a
chain of command through several different insitutions until I got
a feed carried all the way to Duke. That took several months of
letter writing and waiting. At Yale, we're having some problems;
they're created locally, but we aren't getting a feed for all of
[By the way, BIOSCI folks: we're getting bionet.biophysics, not
The highest propagation is 45%, for bionet.general. The average
is closer to 35%.
Basically, if a hierarchy doesn't get high propagation, it makes
a lot of work for all the little guys who want to read it there.
Una Smith smith-una at yale.edu
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8104 USA
More information about the Bioforum