Support for Rietveld Newsgroup Proposal?

L. Cranswick ( L.M.D.Cranswick@dl.ac.uk )
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:12:52 +0000 (GMT)

Hi All,

Apologies for the length of this as I am trying to
anticipate the usual arguments against such things.

-----

Back in Jan 1995, there was a proposal to convert the
Rietveld mailing list to a Usenet newsgroup
(sci.techniques.xtallography.rietveld). The aim being that
some people could get the mailing list off their mailboxes and
onto their news readers - and make access for some easier.
One problem was that many people do not have Newsgroup
access - so a mail-list gateway was proposed along with it.
This failed by single digit figures when it came to a vote
due to lack of support.

I would like to propose (if people would still like the
option of interacting via a newsgroup) as well as
mailing list gateway and automatic archive, the creation
of a newsgroup on the bionet titled bionet.xtallography.rietveld.

(Daresbury is one of the main administrative hubs for the
bionet and the bionet guru here says this would not be
an inappropriate proposal for the bionet area)

People should feel free to respond to the list over this -
the mailing was created for dicussion.
However, if feeling reticent about clogging up some people's
email boxes (a problem with mailing lists) - reply to me
and I can make a summary.

----

4 main options are below:

- Keep things as they are - mailing list at ILL - it
works - don't stuff with it.
- Be a bit more sociable and kill the mailing list
and migrate to an existing newsgroup
(i.e., sci.techniques.xtallography)
- Try to create a Usenet newsgroup (pain in the arse -
plus no mailing list gateway and no automatic archive -
and the proposal can again fail).
- Try to create a bionet.xtallography.rietveld
(bionet was originally created for biology and is
flexible - plus we get mailing list gateway and
automatic archive if we go in this direction)

If people still would like the newsgroup option,
obviously I am biased towards creating a
bionet.xtallography.rietveld as it looks like the path
of least resistance and offers extra quality resources.

----

Why Bionet (where bionet.xtallography is located) and not
Usenet (i.e., where sci.techniques.xtallography is located)?

The Bionet (www.bio.net) is a quality area better
known for encouraging serious scientific
usage of the newsgroups and internet. (unlike Usenet)

Bionet voting system is easier/less votes required.
Discussion for creating the newsgroup is less trashy
than Usenet.

Bionet gateways the newsgroup to a mailing list for
those who do not have newsgroup access. (unlike Usenet)

They automatically create a web and email accessible
archive (Refer: www.bionet.net) (Unlike Usenet)

They have more flexible methods of "limiting" offensive
messages - without the need for moderated newsgroups.
Newsgroup (but not mailing list) messages can be cancelled
after the event.
(In practise, the most effective method of
handling offensive messages to a newsgroup is to
educate people on how to quickly and efficiently use
the delete key. Newsgroups that ignore offensive
messages tend to get less of these than newsgroups
that take offense and make an issue of it).

The bionet has the easier facility to change the status
(including removal) of its groups as required by
its participants.

-----

Is the name bionet.xtallography.rietveld appropriate?
Is putting a Rietveld newsgroup on the bionet - given
the bionet is officially devoted to biological newsgroups?

Rietveld is used for biological (as well as non-biological
applications. Thus makes it not un-suitable to be proposed
for putting a Rietveld newsgroup on the bionet.
What is in a name?
Is sci.techniques.xtallography appropriate(?) - is
crystallography a technique? That was the name the Usenet
administratrators wanted before allowing the
vote to start - path of least resistance.
With a newsgroup on the bionet - we have access to
extra resources not available to Usenet newsgroups.

If we want path of least resistance for a quality
Rietveld resource/newsgroup that is backed up by
a mailing list and automated archive - bionet is
the good way to go. The bionet is the only decent
and established resource that offers this science
friendly support. It would be nice to have other
science friendly newsgroup heirarchies on the internet
of the same quality as the bionet, but this is not the
case at the moment.

The proposal to create a bionet.xtallography.rietveld
would probably state something to the effect "that
Rietveld analysis has both biological and non-biological
applications, however the bionet heirarchy is favoured
due to the above reasons".

----

If the Rietveld list is made into a newsgroup, won't we
get lots of SPAM and/or offensive and/or inappropriate
messages on the Rietveld newsgroup?

In short - the answer is a possible Yes. This is the price
of having a newsgroup in the modern world on the modern
internet.

Though with common sense this can be handled. The most
effective solution being to ingore/delete any inoffensive
posts without responding. Out of an average of 10
unsolicite junk emails I receive a day, they all take on
average 5 to 10 second to delete. SPAM messages tend
to become more common if there is interest - i.e.,
responses of any type. Requires educating participants
of the newsgroup a bit - but can be done.

----

Won't this mean further "Balkanisation" of the newsgroups
and scientific discussion?

Many newsgroup gurus imply that the splitting up of
topics into sub newsgroups is an evil thing. The above
term implying the worst excesses of xenophobic hatred
will descent on those who weakly submit to this process
amongst newsgroups and mailing lists over the internet.
I would like to reaffirm that this is nothing more
than a newsgroup proposal, involves nothing to do with
dangerous technologies such as nuclear or biological
weapons - or desires to institute ethnic cleansing.
Irrespective of where the proposal fails,
or the newsgroup is a flop - the ability of participants
to live in the world around them, have children, etc,
will not be affected.

My opinion is the opposite of the above "gurus". Specialist
(and general) scientific discussion forums over the
internet offer the chance for geographically
isolated, like minded specialists to discuss issues
in a cosy environment. Even if small numbers are
associated with these lists, "quality counts for
something" - though this goes against many newsgroup
gurus' philosophy that "quantity counts for everything".
It is totally up to individual participants whether
they sent their messages to general or specialist
groups. If people doubt the power of specialisation
using the newsgroups - have a browse through the comp.*
heirarchy. If worried that crytallography is too small
to support such variation - try lookint at:
http://www.iucr.org/comm/index.html
Commissions of the IUCr

Thus while it may be noted that bionet.xtallography
and sci.techniques.xtallograph