RIET List - Missing bit of rant - Support for Rietveld Newsgroup Proposal?

L. Cranswick ( L.M.D.Cranswick@dl.ac.uk )
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:52:45 +0000 (GMT)

Hi All,

Truncation of my message was reported. Seems the ILL
listserv has a message quality:length evaluator on it
and makes appropriate judgement :-)

Just reissuing 4 main option and continuing on.

Lachlan.

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

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.

----

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

Thus while it may be noted that bionet.xtallography
and sci.techniques.xtallography are not high
volume newsgroups, they serve their participants
to the level they want of it, just as a Rietveld
mailing list and Newsgroup can serve Rietveld users
to the level they would like - what ever that may
turn out to be. When it comes to the crunch,
participants via the voting procedure decides whether
a newsgroup is considered worth creating. Participants
then decide whether is is worth using.

It should be noted that almost every serious
scientific newsgroup proposal (at least the ones
I have been involved in - and a few I haven't) have
all been decried by those who claim to know
as a waste of space and "Balkanising(sp?)
the internet - with the most certain result that a
Pandora's box of evil would be released". These
include:
sci.techniques.xtallography
sci.techniques.spectroscopy
sci.techniques.microscopy
sci.materials.ceramics
sci.geo.oceanography
sci.engr.semiconductors
sci.chem.electrochem
sci.archaeology.mesoamerican
sci.chem.electrochem.batteries
sci.chem.labware
sci.geo.petroleum
sci.materials.metallurgy
sci.chem.analytical
sci.archaeology.moderated
sci.engr.mining
sci.chem.analytical

Thus readers can decide whether for themselves based
on browsing the above specialist scientific newsgroups
(while not high volume), whether on the whole, such
things are a a benefit - or a detriment.

----

To try and encourage at least some responses - albiet
more likely negative, the default lack of a response
means yes - we want to try the bionet.xtallography.rietveld
proposal - and that you will vote yest when the Call For
Votes is issued.

Sorry for the waffle - could do more but this seems to
cover the major points. Anyone reading an email or
newsgroup message is always at liberty to stop reading
or press the delete key! :-)

-----

Cheers,

Lachlan.

----
Lachlan M. D. Cranswick
CCP14 for Single Crystal and Powder Diffraction
Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington, WA4 4AD U.K
Tel: +44-1925-603703 Fax: +44-1925-603173 Room C14
E-mail: l.cranswick@dl.ac.uk

Personal Crystallographic WWW:
http://www.unige.ch/crystal/stxnews/stx/volnteer.htm
Commission on Powder Diffraction, Quantitative Phase Analysis Round Robin:
http://www.dl.ac.uk/SRS/XRD/IUCR/QARR/
Society of Crystallogaphers in Australia (SCA): http://www.sca.asn.au/
Australasian Web Publishers Association: (AWPA): http://www.awpa.asn.au/
Australian X-ray Analytical Association (AXAA):
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/axaa/