NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/news/groups/24900

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-24 | 5.5 KB

Xref: sparky news.groups:24900 alt.native:1533
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!alliant!merk!spdcc!gnosys!gst
From: [e-mail] (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: NATIVE STRAW POLL: SPIN DOCTOR AT WORK
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 13:25:54 GMT
Lines: 102

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
    (Mike Wilson) writes:

> My two cent's worth about the poll. It seems to me that, at the
> very least, it's clear that the preferred hierarchy is
> soc.culture.native*.  The question becomes whether we want
> to say with soc.culture.native or move ahead with soc.culture.
> native.american.

I'd like to offer a few thoughts on the results of Mike's straw poll.

First, though the poll turned out to favor my own preference for a
"soc.culture.native" newsgroup, though I didn't even take part in
the vote, I am prepared to admit, before anyone else even makes the
point, that thirty-eight people may not be a large enough sample to
really give much of an indication of how people might feel more
generally, once we go to a real vote.

Let's remind ourselves of a few things here...

As long as the vote is being conducted primarily among readers of
news.groups (and right before a major holiday, at that), it only
tells us what those who voted, who care more about names than about
content of the newsgroups feel.  I think it does say that there is
not much support at all for a hyphenated newsgroup name, and that
"soc.culture.native" and "soc.culture.native.american" are two names
that could be accepted by the keepers of Usenet namespace.  However,
as we discussed earlier, there might be some resistance to creating
a new hierarchy (".native") only for the purpose of sticking a new
newsgroup (".american") into it, and that creating just one level at
the present time is more likely to be supported by the net-gods.

But I don't think that it's really fair to make important decisions
based only on what are *acceptable* names.  We should be thinking
about the content of the newsgroups themselves, and what kind of
material they will be used to carry.  And we should be asking those
questions of the people who will be using them on a regular basis.

Once possibility would be to see if we can get the date of the CFV
extended by a couple of weeks in order to have a bit more discussion,
and maybe another straw poll in which people interested in the content
of the newsgroup(s) could participate, or we could conduct a multi-
way vote in which both "soc.culture.native" and "soc.culture.native.
american" were options.

> My own feeling is that we will be better served to create a
> soc.culture.native and then later make divisions as the traffic
> warrants.  I believe, furthermore, that a revised charter should
> reflect this greater inclusiveness, calling for discussions
> for and about native people all over the world. Later, divisions
> by region may be in order, but we can cross that bridge when
> we come to it.

I strongly support Mike in this feeling, actually.  My main reason
for saying that I would be willing to see a multi-way vote conducted
is to make sure that those who feel that what they really want is a
newsgroup primarily for exchanges of and by indigenous people in the
Americas to indicate that feeling.  But since Mike made the original
proposal for that kind of newsgroup, if he and others who had such
feelings are now satisfied to start with a more inclusive newsgroup,
I would be content to have a simpler up/down vote on whatever name
is judged most popular in the straw poll(s).

But I think we have a good basis for compromise in the "soc.culture.
native" name, actually.  I really would have liked to have tried to
create a second newsgroup, called "soc.culture.native.d" at the same
time, largely in order to make my own life simpler when it comes to
gating the NATIVE-L and NATCHAT lists into and out of the new news-
group (and I would have liked to have had a "soc.culture.native.info"
newsgroup rather than "soc.culture.native," just to make it clearer
that the purpose of the newsgroup was for informational kinds of
articles).  So I am prepared to go with something that isn't quite
what I would like, hoping to come back a bit later, after folks have
had a chance to see how it all goes, both from the newsgroup and the
mailing list sides of things, and Mike seems willing to wait a while
on the idea of breaking out a separate newsgroup for the indigenous
peoples of the Americas.  And I suspect that others who voted for
other less-popular options will be willing to join us also.  I feel
that the consensus we have been hoping for is near at hand.

I'd like to include Mike's last words, and say that I endorse them
completely:

> I hope that those who want to push ahead with soc.culture.native.
> american will settle for soc.culture.native for now.  If we can
> come together on the name issue at this point, I believe we have
> an excellent chance of finally having a mainstream native newsgroup,
> something we should have had a long time ago.  I further hope that
> after the first of the year, we can come back and put together
> a name and charter that will finally allow us to work together
> in the spirit of compromise to get the job done.

> Thanks for your help and happy holidays,

> Mike Wilson

These are my wishes also.  Thanks, everyone!

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            [e-mail]
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst