Proposal For A New Rec.Aviation Newsgroup. (WAS: McCain in '08)

[I'm posting from news.groups]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:53:58 -0700, Bob Fry
wrote:

"LD" == Larry Dighera writes:

LD 4. The proponent asks the board to vote on the proposal.

LD 5. The board votes on the proposal.

What board is this?

The Big 8 Management Board (aka B8MB).

About 15 years ago I created a new group in comp.lang, and the rule
then was that a certain percentage of all voters had to be in favor of
the proposal. Certainly there was no "board". Or do you mean all the
people reading and voting on the proposal?

In October 2002, a trio consisting of Russ Allbery, Todd McComb, and
Piranha too over from David C. Lawrence (aka Tale) as moderators of
news.announce.newgroups (aka nan). In that role, they continued to
oversee the process that you had participated in 15 years ago. Brian
Edmonds later joined the 2002 group.

Last fall, they decided that the process simply wasn't working any
longer. Groups such as yours simply weren't able to get enough votes.
Other groups got enough votes only through ballot stuffing, which
produced groups with no one using them.

After some discussion, they (the moderators of nan) turned[*] the
entire group creation process to a group of persons who have desiganted
themselves the Big 8 Management Board, who have devised a new process to
create new groups.

It is similar to the old process in that it begins with a discussion. It
differs in that the final decision is not made by a public vote, but by
the members of the B8MB.

The intent of the "vote" in the old process was to demonstrate that
there was enough interest in discussing the topic of the proposed group
such that the group would be successful. The B8MB most likely would
expect a level of interest in using the new group.

I just read back through the thread in the rec.aviation.* groups. I
question whether a rec.aviation.politics group would be successful
unless those persons who engaged in such discussion actually moved to
the new group. It may be that they simply want to discuss politics with
other pilots and other aviation enthusiasts. Pilots and enthusiasts who
are interested primarily in flying, but sometimes respond in the
political threads, might not be inclined to subscribe to a new group
devoted to political discussion.

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.
--
Jim Riley

"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:24:55 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

"Jim Riley" wrote

There was also mention of a a group for the EAA. That might have more
potential if those with interested in experimental aviation wanted a
more focused group.

Unfortunately, there would be people join the new group that don't have
enough self control to keep from posting political crap.

I thought that the proposal for the EAA group was totally disjoint from
that for rec.aviation.politics. Basically, someone who saw the
discussion about another new group, had the thought that if you were
going to create a group, why not make one that had something to do with
airplanes.

I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

Why can't we all just talk about airplanes? Gads!
--
Jim Riley

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

Peter J Ross wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to
aviation is inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm
not mistaken, the 'R' in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by
the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.