In article ,
Lee DeRaud wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 18:09:03 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Lee DeRaud
wrote:

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

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

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

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.