Subject: RFD: sci.astro.fits

From: dwells at fits.cx.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Date: 15 Jan 92 05:37:39 GMT

Request For Discussion to Create USENET Newsgroup

Name:	sci.astro.fits

Status:	Unmoderated

Charter:

  This newsgroup will provide a forum for the discussion of all topics
  concerning the FITS [Flexible Image Transport System] data format.
  The newsgroup will be interfaced to the Email exploder
  fitsbits at fits.cx.nrao.edu so that traffic originating on either the
  newsgroup on the exploder will be automatically transmitted to the
  other. This new newsgroup will replace existing newsgroup
  alt.sci.astro.fits.  

Reference Entry:

  sci.astro.fits	Issues related to FITS [Flexible Image Transport System]

Initial Discussion:

  On 19 December I posted a message to alt.sci.astro.fits entitled
  "Create sci.astro.fits?". I received four replies, three in favor
  and one opposed. The person opposed was not really in opposition to
  a FITS newsgroup per se, but rather to proliferation of special
  interest groups. We had an exchange of Email which explored the class
  of related issues, but the heart of the difference of opinion is
  fairly well conveyed by the appended extract, in which my remarks
  are labelled "DW" and the other person's opinions are labelled "OP": 

  OP> I object in principle to groups on Usenet (which is
  OP> essentially a general purpose public broadcasting system) which have a
  OP> total potential worldwide readership numbered in the thousands, most
  OP> of whom don't know about Usenet in the first place, and who are
  OP> concentrated at only a small minority of the sites.  
 
  DW> Very few groups on Usenet are read by even 10% of the readers. In
  DW> fact, the purpose of Usenet is to provide a communication mechanism
  DW> for modest-sized subsets of the community who have specialized
  DW> interests. In other words, you are objecting in principle to the main
  DW> *principle* of Usenet! Each of these small communities agrees to carry
  DW> the traffic of the other communities, and thus all benefit.
-- 
Donald C. Wells             Associate Scientist        dwells at nrao.edu
National Radio Astronomy Observatory                   +1-804-296-0277
520 Edgemont Road                                 Fax= +1-804-296-0278
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2475 USA            78:31.1W, 38:02.2N

---

From: dwells at fits.cx.nrao.edu (Don Wells)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 21:47:16 GMT

In article <rhtr#+# at rpi.edu> on 15-January-92 dwells at fits.cx.nrao.edu
(Don Wells) writes:

 DW> Request For Discussion to Create USENET Newsgroup
 DW> 
 DW> Name:	sci.astro.fits
 DW> 
 DW> Status:	Unmoderated
 DW> 
 DW> Charter:
 DW> 
 DW> This newsgroup will provide a forum for the discussion of all topics
 DW> concerning the FITS [Flexible Image Transport System] data format.
 DW> The newsgroup will be interfaced to the Email exploder
 DW> fitsbits at fits.cx.nrao.edu so that traffic originating on either the
 DW> newsgroup on the exploder will be automatically transmitted to the
 DW> other. This new newsgroup will replace existing newsgroup
 DW> alt.sci.astro.fits.  

Two followups, private Email to me from several people, and the "OP"
[Other Person] quoted in the RFD have argued that the traffic volume
of alt.sci.astro.fits plus the implied(?) small size of the
special-interest user community suggest that formation of the new
newsgroup is not justified. I do not agree. First, number of postings
is not necessarily related to either the importance of a subject or to
the need for a newsgroup.  Second, many sites do not subscribe to the
alt.* heirarchy, so traffic may prove to be larger in sci.astro.fits
than in alt.sci.astro.fits.  Finally, I believe that the astronomical
computing community *is* large enough. In the end this debate cannot
be resolved by an appeal to currently-known facts.  Instead, we must
follow the USEnet procedure, RFD and CFV, and let the votes decide the
question.

One person suggested to me in Email that the scope of the charter
should be broadened to include astronomical software in general. I do
not agree with this. I recommend that the WGAS-L exploder be gated to
a new newsgroup bit.listserv.wgas-l (the AUVM gateway service will do
this for our community on request); WGAS-L has been used for general
software discussion during the past year.

I have received several Email messages expressing support for the
sci.astro.fits proposal. I thank those of you who sent them! It
wouldn't hurt for a few of you to also post such statements as
followups (in news.groups, of course).

I have not seen anything in the followups or Email which indicates to
me that the proposed charter for sci.astro.fits should be modified. I
asked "group-advice at rpi.edu" how soon the CFV [Call For Votes] can be
issued; the answer was "please don't send out a CFV until after 5
February".  Therefore, discussion of this RFD will continue for at
least another 14 days.

--