GEN-FR-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-FR > 1994-12 > 0787970185


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: FM-Genealogie connection (was Re: PLEASE READ THIS)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 00:36:25 GMT


In a previous article, (Denis Beauregard) says:

>In article <3d60fs$> (Todd A.
Farmerie) writes:
>>In a previous article, (Kaleb KEITHLEY) posts:
>>
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>CHARTERS:
>>>
>>>soc.genealogy.french Francophone genealogy
>>>
>>>Soc.genealogy.french will be gated to fr.rec.genealogie, whose
>>>
>>>soc.genealogy.french will be gatewayed to FrancoMedia (a Fidonet technology
>>>BBS network) equivalent conference (FM-Genealogie).
>>>
>>
>
>FM-Genealogie is connected to fr.rec.genealogie and to GEN-FF-L list.
>soc.genealogy.french is connected to GEN-FR-L. Thanks to mailing
>lists, I think anyone who wants the FM-G connection can get it if
>fr.* is not available locally.
>

You have lost me among these groups. What is the relationship between
GEN-FF-L and GEN-FR-L? Is there any link between f.r.g and s.g.f? What is
the genealogy.cdn mentioned below?

>Please note I thought previously it would be good to link together
>all those groups, but changed my mind following some debates either
>in FM-G and in recently created soc.culture.quebec, and also in view
>of genealogy.cdn. On another hand, I may ask to FrancoMedia if they
>would relay s.g.f. in addition to f.r.g.
>

I fail to see the advantage to keeping the groups separate. If it is the
language thing, it does not appear to be much of a problem for s.g.german.
(Anyhow, if the subject line is clear, between the surnames, dates, and
places, a message could be in Swahili, and it would still be clear whether
or not it is worth pursuing.) I also do not see what soc.cul.quebec has to
do with genealogy. To keep the two groups separate seems to make an
artificial division, based on current primary language, among people with
common ancestry in the same regions, who could benefit from shared
resources.

I also do not understand why this was not cleared up prior to the vote
which created the group. Assuming the charter above was the final one, it
was voted for and approved with the explicit intent of establishing the
gateway. I question that the same interest in creating the group would
have existed if it was clear it would not be gatewayed. The practical
reason for the split of soc.roots was to focus posts relating to the same
subject area in a single place, not to create multiple groups with the same
area of interest. If the two are not gatewayed, is it necessary to have
another vote to amend the charter so that it appropriately represents the
non-gated status of the group?

Todd

This thread: