Start of FAQ 2.2 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Subject: FAQ 2.2 for RFD2: soc.genealogy.* groups > Newsgroups: news.groups > Followup-To: news.groups > This is a companion post to: > Subject: RFD2: soc.genealogy.* groups These questions pertain to the overall proposal in the revised RFD. FAQ 2.2 ==== Q & A ON THE OVERALL PROPOSAL ==== Q Why was the RFD sent to certain groups and mailing lists? Q What has changed between the first RFD and the revised RFD? Q What is the background behind the soc.genealogy.* proposal? Q Why change the name of the group from soc.roots? Q Why are the new groups under soc.genealogy.* and not elsewhere? Q Can we just rename soc.roots to soc.genealogy (without the .misc) ? Q If the entire soc.genealogy.* proposal passes, what will happen to ... Q ... soc.roots Q ... alt.genealogy Q ... gateways to new mailing lists Q ... gateways to existing mailing lists Q ... connections to other networks (e.g.: Fido, BBS nets) Q What happens if only some of the proposed groups pass? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ==== Q & A ON THE OVERALL PROPOSAL ==== Q Why was the RFD sent to certain groups and mailing lists? A We have tried to inform online genealogists of the soc.genealogy.* proposal without overloading the mailboxes of mailing list subscribers with messages about and discussion of this proposal. The RFD does not propose any change to alt.genealogy, or any other non-Usenet group, or any mailing list whose administrators have not asked to have their group or mailing list be a part of this proposal. The first RFD was sent only to the groups which will be directly affected by the changes proposed and a 'pointer' letter was sent to other groups. This was an attempt to minimize unwanted posts in groups which would not be immediately affected. However during the discussions after the first RFD, some readers of the groups which did not receive the full RFD asked that the full text of the revised RFD be posted to all groups. We are doing that, and apologize to those of you who would have preferred we had not. It appears that copies of documents from the proponents have been reposted into ROOTS-L and alt.genealogy by readers of those groups. Since it seems there is sufficient interest about the RFD we have decided to post an official there, hoping that this will prevent the readers from seeing multiple copies or copies which have been modified in some way. Thus, the newsgroups and mailing lists which only received a "pointer" to the first RFD, will receive this RFD and the CFVs. These groups are alt.genealogy and alt.config and the mailing lists ROOTS-L, PAF-L and LINES-L FAQ files will be posted only to news.groups. The proponents hope that online genealogists who wish to discuss this proposal will participate in the discussions in news.groups and, if the proposal passes, will participate in the reorganized groups - and gain genealogically from them. Under Usenet guidelines, the RFDs, 2 CFVs (Calls for Votes), and vote results must be posted to some groups other than news.groups. With the exception of those required messages, people who read mailing lists or newsgroups other than news.groups should be able to avoid discussion of this RFD or of any Usenet genealogy newsgroup re-organization simply by not reading news.groups. People who are not interested in following the discussion, but who do want to read the CFV and vote on it may want to scan the low-traffic moderated news.announce.newgroups newsgroup for messages with the word "genealogy" in the Subject: line. People who do want to follow the discussion in news.groups should note that many other RFD proposals and other discussions take place in that newsgroup. You will probably want to scan news.groups for (at least) messages with the word "genealogy" in the Subject: line. If you choose to post any messages about this proposal or about Usenet genealogy newsgroup re-organization proposal in places other than news.groups, please note that any discussion outside of news.groups might be viewed as off-topic by readers of other forums. If you respond in news.groups to this article, or to the RFD, or to related messages, please see that your article headers include: Newsgroups: news.groups Followup-To: news.groups Q What has changed between the first RFD and the revised RFD? A The RFD explains the differences. In short we revised the RFD to put the groups in soc.genealogy, added soc.g.methods (moderated), revised soc.g.misc to reflect that, and added wording about how groups would modified. Q What is the background behind the soc.genealogy.* proposal? A First, a disclaimer - We try below to present a fair and balanced background summary of a sequence of events and messages that includes many strongly-held opinions and easily misunderstood statements. It is probably impossible to write a summary that all of the people who were involved will see as being fair to everyone. We are much more interested in bringing the proposal to a vote than in reviewing exactly who said exactly what, what was meant by it, and how it was (mis-)understood. If you feel that anything in the RFD or the following summary misrepresents what you said or what happened, you may want to present a counter-summary. Soc.roots and ROOTS-L - Proposals to re-organize soc.roots have come up repeatedly over the past few years. However this is the first official RFD. Until recently, soc.roots was gatewayed to the ROOTS-L mailing list, and, because many of those list subscribers do not have access to news.groups, recent split discussions took place in soc.roots with a wide variety of responses from both soc.roots and ROOTS-L readers. Although many opinions were expressed, no consensus was reached, other than that most readers quickly grew tired of the discussion. An unofficial RFD was posted to soc.roots in late May, which provoked a new wave of posts. In early June the manager of ROOTS-L closed the gateway between soc.roots and ROOTS-L, saying that many ROOTS-L readers were tired of seeing posts on the soc.roots split topic rather than on genealogy. Alt.genealogy Alt.genealogy has come and gone over the years when people have not found another Usenet group they recognize as being for genealogy. This certainly points up the obscurity of the "roots" name. Recently, alt.genealogy has had an increase in numbers of readers and posted articles, but it has less than optimal propagation in part because many news sites do not carry the alt.* hierarchy. At the present time many articles are being crossposted to soc.roots. Q Why change the name of the group from soc.roots? A The use of "roots" to mean genealogy is often misunderstood. A Usenet "roots" newsgroup has existed since at least 1983 - net.roots was in the "List of Active Newsgroups" at that time. "Roots" is the title of a book by Alex Haley, published in the 1970s, that was also produced as a television mini-series. The book and series fanned a wave of interest in genealogy. But the "roots" usage in the US is less well-known now, and is at best obscure for international net-news readers. Experience has shown that many new news-readers looked for a genealogy group and did not find soc.roots. Thus, we believe that the "*.genealogy.*" newsgroup names would be a better choice than "roots.*" Q Why are the new groups under soc.genealogy.* and not elsewhere? A Early discussion on the top-level hierarchy options quickly led to the choice between soc.genealogy.* and rec.genealogy.* as none of the other big seven top-levels and no second-level soc.*.genealogy or rec.*.genealogy group seemed appropriate. After much discussion, the proponents proposed rec.genealogy in the original RFD. However, many people discussing this issue in news.groups expressed preferences for soc.genealogy or soc.history genealogy. In order to determine the preference of the majority, a Straw Poll was taken. A majority of those voting preferred soc.genealogy.* so this RFD has been modified to reflect that preference. Q Can we just rename soc.roots to soc.genealogy (without the .misc extension) and still have the other soc.genealogy.* subgroups? A While it is technically possible to organize a new hierarchy that way, there are some news-admin reasons to have all the genealogy newsgroups at the same hierarchical level. The use of a .misc subgroup name to succeed a previously undivided group name is often seen in newsgroup re-organizations. Q If the soc.genealogy.* proposal passes, what will happen to ... Q ... soc.roots A After the soc.genealogy.misc group has been created, and after a transition period of 60 days or so, soc.roots will be removed. Any posts which would have been welcome in soc.roots will be welcome in one of the new soc.genealogy.* groups. Q ... alt.genealogy A We have not proposed any changes to alt.genealogy. We welcome all readers of and posters to alt.genealogy to read and post to the appropriate new soc.genealogy.* groups. Procedures for change are different in the big seven and the alt. hierarchies. Anyone wishing to change alt.genealogy will need to discuss that in alt.config. Q ... gateways to new mailing lists A Several of the proposed new groups will be gatewayed to mailing lists. Anyone interested in subscribing to any of those lists is encouraged to contact the appropriate list administrator(s) after the vote is complete. Anyone who can offer site resources which would enable a regional list sub-gateway outside the US is also encouraged to contact a list administrator. Q ... gateways to existing mailing lists A We are open to discussing gateways between soc.genealogy.* groups and existing mailing lists. Proposals to create any additional soc.genealogy.* groups to gateway to mailing lists should be discussed in news.groups as part of a subsequent RFD. Q ... connections to other networks (e.g.: Fido, BBS nets) A Since this is a Usenet RFD, we want to focus here on the Usenet newsgroups, and not on the policies of other networks. If you currently read soc.roots messages that come to your service provider through a gateway, we urge you to ask your service provider to plan to connect to s.g.misc and to the other s.g.* subgroups when they are created. Anyone wishing to gateway any of the new subgroups to other networks or BBSs in a manner consistent with Usenet practice and the Usenet RFCs (Request for Comment) and consistent with the practice and policies of the other network is encouraged to investigate that possibility in the appropriate manner for both Usenet and the non-Usenet network or BBS. Gateways of existing conferences from other networks to Usenet are also possible, but depending on the expected traffic levels of the proposed gateway, this might mean an RFD for a new group(s) under soc.genealogy. We urge anyone considering a gateway of any sort to consider thoroughly the ramifications of a gateway to users on both sides of the gate, and to be prepared to show that a gateway would provide benefits to users on both sides of the gate that would outweigh any detriment to users on both sides. Q What happens if only some of the proposed groups pass? A None of the proposed groups are interdependent with each other, so the passed groups would be created, and the other proposed groups "should not again be brought up for discussion until at least six months have passed from the close of the vote" (Guidelines) Since the proposal specifies that soc.genealogy.misc is to replace soc.roots, soc.roots would be removed only if s.g.misc passes. If soc.genealogy.misc passes and some others do not, s.g.misc or one of the other new groups would be the appropriate place for the discussions proposed in the groups which do not pass. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End of FAQ 2.2