The view from "outside of bionet.*

BIOSCI Administrator biohelp at
Fri Sep 2 15:29:44 EST 1994

In article <1994Aug29.204045.285 at>,
Foteos Macrides <macrides at> wrote:
>In article <33tcg2$bvf at>, dmack at (Dave Mack) writes:
>> I agree on this point. I am considering proposing the formation of
>> two new newsgroups: bionet.groups for the discussion of bionet
>> newsgroup creation and bionet.admin for the discussion of Usenet
>> administrative issues specific to the bionet hierarchy. Not only
>> would this help administrators trying to deal with bionet.*, it
>> would also get the discussion of these issues out of bionet.general,
>> leaving it free for discussions of actual biology.
>	I don't know how important a bionet.admin group would be
>(discussions about administration do tend to become long threads,
>but start up only occassionally).  However, a bionet.groups would
>be very helpful, particularly to the email subscribers.  We had
>split bionet.general into an unmoderated group with the same name,
>and a moderated bionet.announce, primarily for their benefit (the
>traffic in bionet.general is too high for most peoples' personal
>mailboxes).  Spitting off the discussion about proposals to create
>groups would be helpful as well.  The email subscribers would see
>the call for discussion in bionet.announce, and could subscribe to
>bionet.groups if they are interested in participating. 
>	For those of us accessing bionet via news readers, I personally
>don't think the traffic in bionet.general is too high.  With a news
>reader, it's easy enough to skip messages in threads that have become
>inane or tedious, and its easier to scan one group for the non-specialized
>biology topics.

I'm awaiting a proposal from Dave M. on the above and then we can
wrangle over that one too 8-).

My experience has been that probably 95% of most newsgroup proposals
that we put out engender little or no discussion.  Once in a blue moon
something controversial comes along like the prof-society vote
exemption proposal and then the wars begin.  The rest of the time, we
are probably looking at 0 - 5 responses per CFD.

Thus I am not sure that we need a separate group for the discussions
of the newsgroup proposals (note that I am expressing my personal
opinion here and will, of course, go along with whatever the readers
vote on here).  We need to resolve problems like getting better
propagation of the checkgroups message to news administrators, etc.,
that were mentioned in this thread (I don't have time to answer every
message that came in during the last two weeks (Dave M. has already
responded to many), but thanks to everyone for their input), so this
will be an important goal of any proposal in my mind.


				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				biosci-help at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list