On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:53:16 +0000, Nick Smeltzer
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor

Newsgroup line:
uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor

Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK.
Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt
with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and
in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a
result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998.

However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small
compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate
50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and
new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems
to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic
term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of
uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename
uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor

You talk about attracting the intended audience.

That seems entirely backwards to me. Is there a subset of motor
boaters who feel they don't have a group to post to? What sort of
motor boats are we talking here?

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

--
Dave Mayall

What about inflicting a speed limit on this ng????

If so, what speed?

4mph limits it to canals and very slow fishing boats...

8mph limits it to the above and river navigations, and slightly faster
fishing boats...


Anything more is imaginary, surely????? I mean what moron would want
to GO that fast in a boat????


Tony
sedately on the Basy

[I'm not serious, Mike...by the Wey!]

"Dave Mayall" wrote in message
ine.co.uk...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:53:16 +0000, Nick Smeltzer
wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

rename unmoderated newsgroup uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor

Newsgroup line:
uk.boats.motor All aspects of motor boating in the UK


*** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.CONFIG ***
*** CROSSPOSTED TO UK.REC.BOATS.POWER ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

RATIONALE: uk.boats.motor

Prior to 1998 there were no newsgroups covering powered boats in the UK.
Sailing was covered by uk.rec.sailing, whilst uk.rec.waterways dealt
with waterways in general. Motor cruisers, sports boats, speed boats and
in fact any powered craft were not covered by any UK newsgroup. As a
result, uk.rec.boats.power was created in August 1998.

However, since it's creation the number of posts has been rather small
compared with uk.rec.sailing, especially considering the approximate
50-50 split between power and sail in the UK. Comments by regular and
new participants indicate that the name was a poor choice - power seems
to imply racing or high performance craft. "Motor" is more of a generic
term which would attract the users that were the intended audience of
uk.rec.boats.power in the first instance. Hence the request to rename
uk.rec.boats.power to uk.rec.boats.motor

You talk about attracting the intended audience.

That seems entirely backwards to me. Is there a subset of motor
boaters who feel they don't have a group to post to? What sort of
motor boats are we talking here?

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

--
Dave Mayall

I am also a canal boat owners, and we are very, very lucky in the way
uk.rec.waterways supports us and all the other boaters who pop in to ask
questions etc.

However when I started getting into newsgroups (I have been professionally
involved in river boating since the 1970s) I ignotre uk.rec.boats.power
because the name certainly gave me the impression that the group was into
Power Boats - which is not my scene or interest.

It was many months ago that I raised this on the group & I thought it had
died the death.

I think it is a simple "tidying up" exersize, we have a group for sailing,
we have a group who's name makes it clear is intended for everything to do
with inland boating and waterways, we have a group who's name indicates it
is interested in kidies boats (but actually is about canoing), and we have a
group that has a name that has evidently put a number of people off looking
at it.

I am sure this was never intentional, but it appears to have happened.

I do not see any "downside" to the proposal and it might even produce more
interest over time if acted upon. If traffic indicates a need fopr a Power
Boat group in time, so be it.

Tony Brooks, who will continue to monitor Sailing, Power, and Waterways -
whatever they are called.

In . co.uk Dave Mayall writes:

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as
for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on
uk.rec.waterways should be minimal.

In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have
some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it
is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open
waters.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

"Charles Lindsey" wrote in message
...
In . co.uk Dave Mayall
writes:

As an owner of a motor boat (specifically a canal narrowboat), I
certainly don't feel a need for a group, and indeed would oppose such
a move on the basis that it might detract from uk.rec.waterways.

Why was this RFD not crossposted to uk.rec.waterways?

Since the remit of the proposed uk.rec.boats.motor is broadly the same as
for the present uk.rec.boats.power, then in principle its effect on
uk.rec.waterways should be minimal.

Utter tosh.

The whole aim of this RFD is to modify the name so as to encourage those who
would use urw to talk about their boats to use this group instead.

In practice, I grant you that a more active motor boat group would have
some effect on u.r.w, and many topics might be acceptable on both. But it
is clear that much and even most usage of motor boats takes place on open
waters.

No it isn't.

It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of people who talk about their
motor boats on-line are users of the inland waterways.