Woodturners

[tdup2]

Is there a woodturners newsgroup?

Tim

[Unquestionably Confused]

There is and oddly enough it's called: rec.crafts.woodturning

[Walt Novinger]

rec.crafts.woodturning

Walt

[Lee DeRaud]

Question for the assembled multitude: is there actually a reason why this group is "rec.woodworking" and not "rec.crafts.woodworking"? Or conversely, why is the turning group not "rec.woodworking.turning" or just "rec.woodturning"?

Or is this just one of those "just because" things?

Lee

[Ralph E Lindberg]

...

No actually because rec.ww is a very -old- newsgroup. It predates the rec.crafts hierarchy. Years ago (I forget the, maybe 10) I ran a straw poll about splitting this newsgroup. A lot of the, well, macho types didn't want the newsgroup to end up in the rec.crafts hierarchy (a reorg would have eliminated this group). They thought of "crafts" as sewing, etc. I kept pointing out the metal-smith newsgroup (rec.crafts.metalworking) and crafts-MEN. The overall opinion of the poll was no. Personally I started out neutral, but ended up convinced it had to happen. The newsgroup was just too big (it had lots and lots of posts per day). Well, what happened then was the turners still wanted their own group, so they formed one. A bunch of the hand-tool types formed an e-mail list. Then (lastly) some web-based forums opened. The result was, rather then a clean and organized set of newsgroups, we ended up with what we have today.

[Roy Smith]

Not to mention rec.crafts.brewing :-)

[Robert Bonomi]

For 'historical' reasons, a _newsgroup_ named 'foo.bar', and a newsgroup _hierarchy_ named 'foo.bar' (i.e. the parent of groups 'foo.bar.baz', 'foo.bar.quux', etc.) was not allowed. This is why 'rec.woodworking.turning' could not be used.

The other half of the answer is that 'rec.woodworking' was established _very_early_ in the history of USENET. Before there was any serious attempt by the Cabal (TINC) to 'regularize' naming into something approaching a structured hierarchy. Any 'big 8' newsgroup that you see with just a 'two part' name probably has roots dating back to antiquity in like fashion.

USENET is like 'Mopsie" to a degree. it "just grew" over time. :) And, accordingly, the protocols for newsgroup naming have mutated. Those 'mutations' affect things from that point in time, forward.

"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, "just to comply with the new standard" is almost _never_ done.

"Renaming" a previously existing newsgroup, as part of a broader reorganization of that newsgroup -- e.g. 'splitting' it into several 'finer-grained' groups -- does happen. *BUT* there are _lots_ of hoops to be jumped through in the course thereof. There have been numerous attempts, over the years, to do such a reorganization of 'rec.woodworking' -- *none* (as should be obvious) have managed to drum up the degree of support required to get changes implemented. Too many people like things "just the way they are". :)

[Lee DeRaud]

Uh, you do realize there are a *bunch* of exceptions to that "rule"?

Lee

[Dave Balderstone]

Uh, you do realize Robert said "was", ie past tense?

[Lee DeRaud]

Yup. But IIRC, one of the exceptions (rec.motorcycles) predates rec.woodworking.

Lee

[nailshooter41]

Tim:

If you are asking about the USENET group so you can participate, it is as posted above. However, there is a moderated group that is also quite good, folks are friendly and it is also free.

Try

look to the left for a menu. You will see TURNING, click on that and you are on your way. Great archives, great project pages, and lots on general woodworking also.

Robert

[Robert Bonomi]

Available evidence indicates (I can't find any 'hard' data) that both rec.woodworking, and rec.motorcycles date to the Great Renaming, and had a prior life as a 'NET.*' For both groups, the first post that Google has is from the first part of 1987.

The first subgroup (.racing) under 'rec.motorcycles' was established in 1992.

At more-or-less the same time, there was a _big_ fuss going on about 'comp.dcom.telecom (moderated)' and the behavior of the moderator thereof. Various proposals were being floated to create a 'parallel' _unmoderated_ group, and one of the big sticking points was 'what to name it'. The moderator of comp.dcom.telecom. was adamantly opposed to -anything- that would involve modifying the name of the existing newsgroup. *even* a change to 'comp.dcom.telecom.moderated'.

In some of the early proposals (1990,1991) for "whatever the new group is", the issue of newsgroup name / 'node' name collision and _technical_problems_ resulting therefrom _was_ being raised. The *very*contentious* new group proposals for that situation may well have been the impetus for the surveying of 'what kinds/versions' of server software is still in use', and the 'cabal' deciding that the problem was 'no longer a problem'.

'rec.motorcycles.racing' _did_ go to a 'vote', and got approved, considerably before the final vote on 'comp.dcom.telecom.tech'. was ratified. The process on the latter group was _very_ protracted, with one entire vote period being thrown out due to 'unacceptable' politicking (encouraging ballot-box stuffing) by the comp.dcom.telecom moderator. Vague recollection says _another_ vote was thrown out, as well -- that it took _three_ vote runs to get something roughly approaching a 'clean' results -- at least to the point that the cabal could, with a straight face. say they considered it 'representative'.

_To_this_day_, the cabal _prefers_ that 'nodes' in the naming hierarchy be disjoint from newsgroup names, but there is no longer any 'technical' reason for requiring it. They _will_ approve such a proposal these days, although "with reluctance", when no 'reasonable alternative' exists, or when the alternative involves creating several "new" levels of hierarchy, just to accommodate a small number of groups.

The "woodturning" newsgroup was proposed and created in 1996. 'rec.woodworking.woodturning' would have met considerable resistance from the cabal, because there _was_ a 'reasonable' alternative under the 'rec.crafts' "node".

It is also possible that the woodturning group proposal surfaced about the same time as one of the many attempts to 'reorganize' rec.woodworking. Competing proposals for the _same_ namespace are not allowed to proceed simultaneously. And, if one such proposal goes to a vote -- and is voted down -- no other proposals involving that group will be considered for a minimum of 6 months.

*IF* there was such a moratorium in effect regarding rec.woodworking, it could be side-stepped by going to the rec.crafts hierarchy. And getting the 'specialty' newsgroup up and running many months sooner.