Withdrawal RFD rec.aviation.questions removal.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:32:11 GMT, Jim Riley wrote:

(...)
rec.aviation.announce Events of interest to the aviation community. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.answers Frequently asked questions about aviation. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.questions Aviation questions and answers. (Moderated)
rec.aviation.stories Anecdotes of flight experiences. (Moderated)
(...)
I would use a test of utiltity or whether there is desire for a
particular newsgroup. think it may vary among the 4 groups.

I am only participating in r.a.p, but IBTD.

If there are not actively maintained aviation FAQs, there is no point
to rec.aviation.answers. It's primary purpose would be to avoid
having the FAQ's posted across the rec.aviation.* hierarchy, where
many people would see them repetitively.

I see your point, but the existing (well ..) FAQ is more than out of date,
not only not reflecting major changes in the way things work (after 9/11)
these days, but also lacking latest regulations regarding sport pilot
licenses and such.

Widespread access to the world wide web may have supplanted the
utility of rec.aviation.announce. There may be a narrow niche for
"events of interest to the rec.aviation.* community"

ACK. There is (for example) the annual OSH fly-in, but this event is widely
discussed every single year in r.a.p (and followed by invitations to a
party to a hotel owned by a regular).

I think rec.aviations.questions has an unworkable charter, and only
functioned for 3 months. I suppose you could have a group where
people posted questions, and people who wanted to could respond. But
doesn't that already happen in rec.aviation.*? It might take a lot of
effort to moderate.

you have: piloting, student, owning
if you have general questions you post to .piloting
if you want to know something training-related you post to .student
and finally, if you own an aircraft and you have specific questions, well,
then you should post to .owning (same goes for military and homebuild)

I think rec.aviation.stories has the most potential. It was intended

in theory: yes.
one might have more success with a new group rec.aviation.politics :-)

to be low volume group, one that would require a little more effort on
the part of those posting, as well as those reading the articles.
Because it is low volume, it could be relatively easy to moderate. The
articles are unlikely to be particularly time sensitive such that
approvals need not be done in minutes or hours. Once a week may well
be sufficient.

There are maybe 1 or 2 postings in rap worth to be sent to r.a.stories, but
the evolving discussions will then bring you back to
rec.aviation.poli^wpiloting ... so IMHO there is no need for said groups,
keep it slim, but YMMD.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/