Conference vmszoo::rc

	Welcome to the Radio Control Notes File. This conference is
    to be used to discuss anything related, or even semi-related to,
    the Sport/Hobby of Radio Control Modelling, be it air, land or water.
    
    	If you are new to this notes file, please enter a reply to Note
    4, Who's Who, and let us know who you are, where you are, and where
    your interests lay. If you are new to R/C, again let us know. Through
    this notes file you will be able to get just about all the help
    you can use to get a safe and enjoyable start in the sport of radio
    control modelling, whether in boats, cars, or planes. Information
    on clubs, planes, engines, radios, why you need instructors,
    maitainence, building, etc. In short, darn near everything you ever
    wanted to know but didn't know who to ask can be found in this file.
    	
    	While at the present time the vast majority of this notes file
    is devoted to aircraft and helicopters, more and more entries are
    being added on the topics concerning land and water vehicles. Steps
    are currently being planned to increase awareness within DEC of
    the existence of this notes file, which will hopefully expand greatly
    the amount of information available for all forms of radio control.
    
    	In April of 1988 a group of us got together and formed the Digital
    Equipment Corp. Radio Control Modellers, (DECRCM) to promote the
    sport/hobby of R/C within DEC. We are beginning to get organized
    and are just starting to explore the possiblities available to a
    club that is international in flavor, and probably very unique among
    radio control clubs in existence today. Note 522 has been reserved
    for news announcements, membership listings, and information concerning
    this club.
    


         __
    * __|__|__  *    *    *     *
  *     (**)   V *  *  *   |* *   *
   *   (    )--| *  _______0_______  *  	   	
 _____(______)_|_________U___U______*___
	                
      "The Sno-man"			

    Out of concern for our files, Eric Henderson forwarded the attached
    note from the FLYING notes conference.  I understand Ron Glover's
    position, and I appreciate his restrained reaction.  If we do not
    moderate ourselves [in the lower case sense], we risk losing a 
    privilege we cherish.
    
    For this conference, I'll interpret Glover's points as the following
    policies/guidelines for RC Notes.
    
    1.  Absolutely _no_ unsubstantiated trashing (libeling) of any
        products, shops, companies, or people.
          
          For example, the following single line was the entirety of
          a "review" of a named hobby shop:
          
              "...its even more disgusting than I'd imagined!"
          
          And it wasn't a very informative review.
        
    2.  Glover says that "it is not appropriate for [employees] to make
        negative comments or references about any person or business
        entity" because we don't give the target an opportunity to reply in
        the same medium.  In my opinion, Glover goes too far; we don't give
        vendors a chance to reply [in the same medium] to a report on a
        component evaluation.  But I agree with Glover's principle of
        fairness.  And, frankly, I'm afraid of losing our files.

        I'll allow negative observations-of-strict-facts, but stick to
        firm observations.  Be more than careful of extrapolations beyond
        the observations.  You can still be critical, you can say that you
        personally don't use or care for a set of products, but you are
        walking on broken glass, and our feet are there with yours.
          
          For example, a recent observation of servo gear backlash was a
          reasonable set of data --- it is acceptable even though it is of
          ordinary validity --- it doesn't have to be sworn and certified.
          The conclusion that that brand was junk was an extrapolation on
          thin ice. 
          
          From another topic, I think this statement was OK, " ......
          carburetors require much more patience/knowledge skill with
          engines than most fledglings have had time to accumulate." Al
          made his point without much risk of being unfair.
        
    3.  Be especially careful when the subject is a hobby shop or another
        small business.

    4.  DO NOT TAKE NEGATIVE PRINT_OUT'S, ETC. OUTSIDE DIGITAL.  That's
        against policy and probably very, very stupid.  A lawyer for
        the offended would love you for the assist.
        
    
================================================================================
Note 1.18                            Welcome                            18 of 18
MUDHWK::LAWLER "Bring back Classic ELF!"             49 lines   5-MAR-1990 07:32
                   -< Commentary on Businesses now limited. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  
    
        
    In response to several incidents, Ron Glover, Corporate Personnel
    Policy Manager) has issued the following memo.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
        
Over the last several months Digital has been contacted by a number of
individuals and business entities that were angry about negative
comments made about them in our Notesfiles and Conferences.  As the
Personnel Policy Manager for Digital I have been the recipient of many
of those notes.  I thought I should take the time to post this note to
inform employees that it is not appropriate for them to make negative
comments or references about any person or business entity in any of
inform employees that it is not appropriate for them to make negative
comments or references about any person or business entity in any of
Digital's employee interest notesfile or conferences.

There are several reasons why we are establishing this rule.
The first has to do with fundamental fairness.  It is simply not fair
for an employee to make a negative comment about a business when we
don't provide those businesses an opportunity to respond and defend
themselves.  This is particularly true given the fact that we have no
way of determining whether the comment is honest, fair or accurate.
Clearly Digital has no intention, or desire, to open up its notesfiles
to third-party businesses so that they can engage in a debate about
whether they provide quality services.  The only logical solution then
is to ask our employees to refrain from using the Notesfiles to air
grievances they have with individuals, vendors, or organizations.

In addition to out concerns about fairness, we are concerned about the
potential damage that these kinds of comments may cause to third-party
businesses.  In that regard, employees should understand that they may
be personally liable if the statements they make cause harm to any
person or business.  Moreover, there is some possibility Digital may be
held liable for such comments as well.  Stated more simply, comments
made in a Notesfile or conference are in no way privileged or immune
from claims of liable, slander or defamation.

We are asking all of the users of Notesfiles to exercise discretion and
judgement in the comments that they make in the system.  We are also
asking moderators to go back and review the notesfiles they
moderate and to remove any notes that include derogatory references to
third-party businesses.

Please feel free to contact your moderator if you have any questions
on this subject.

Ron Glover
Corporate Peronnel Policy Manager
==============================================================================

I would estimate that 50% of RC notes and some of the DECRCM notes file fall 
into the above category. I thought that I should make you aware of the 
seriousness of the situation.

best regards

Eric H.

>          For example, a recent observation of servo gear backlash was a
>          reasonable set of data --- it is acceptable even though it is of
>          ordinary validity --- it doesn't have to be sworn and certified.
>          The conclusion that that brand was junk was an extrapolation on
>          thin ice. 

I assume your talking about a recent entry I made.  I measured some
servos last night and they come out much better than my estimates
that were less scientific.  Ironically the actual technical content
was pretty far off but the extrapolation "junk" was probably right
on the mark.
          
>    In response to several incidents, Ron Glover, Corporate Personnel
>    Policy Manager) has issued the following memo.

I don't know Ron Glover - but I'll bet a memo is a memo and if he
wants to change the DEC Personnel Policies and Procedures manual it
will take more than just his input.

>Over the last several months Digital has been contacted by a number of
>individuals and business entities that were angry about negative
>comments made about them in our Notesfiles and Conferences.  As the

Good.  Or should we wish that our notes files have no impact and that
reading them is a waste of our time?

>The first has to do with fundamental fairness.  It is simply not fair
>for an employee to make a negative comment about a business when we
>don't provide those businesses an opportunity to respond and defend
>themselves.  This is particularly true given the fact that we have no

Do the businesses give the customers an opportunity to respond?
They advertise in full page ads - do they reserve a small section
for complaints?

>judgement in the comments that they make in the system.  We are also
>asking moderators to go back and review the notesfiles they
>moderate and to remove any notes that include derogatory references to
>third-party businesses.

Well - there goes all my old notes!

Well - on a more positive note I would like to recommend the following
combination to any new RCer.

Get a Bob Parkinson Eagle II with Fox engine.
Use the 1991 approved Futaba Attack AM radio (channel
20 preferred) and if you can find them put in the older 
Aristocraft servos and only run with Tom's Blaster fuel.

You'll be the envy of the R/C community.

On a more serious note - I guess I should tone down
my complaints about vendors.  After all we do have tons
of really good stuff out there that we can purchase and
the majority of the retailers are struggling to make
ends meet.  So in the future I will try to offer objective
reviews and if I have complaints I will call the vendor and
post the "I said then he said then I said then..." results
in this file.

Sure is a shame to me tho that as soon as the legal beagles
get involved the rules become so restrictive that some of the
fun ends.  Perhaps there is a way we can make some fun from this.
How about a "Flame the vendors" meeting or fun fly.  No positive
comments allowed and all prizes will be assumed to be "JUNK".
I'm sure if everyone dug deep you could come up with the something
to donate as a prize.  Think of it - what was the biggest rip off
you ever had?  Donate it to the "Flame the vendors fun fly".
Maybe Al could cover it and put an article in RCM - be sure to
thank all the vendors for their kind donations!

Rambling...

For what it's worth I think Ron Glover is doing the right thing.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

It would seem to me that a clear expression of opinion is ok, even if
it's a negative opinion. Philosophically, I'm very concerned about our
culture's loss of real meaning in language, due to the tyranny of the
anti-discrimation movement and legal profession gone amok. I believe
discrimination is wrong, but changing the language to disparage by
innuendo instead of directly is a tragic sham that does little to
address the underlying problem. 

Enough philosophy - this is the wrong topic for this anyway, so the
moderators can feel free to move/delete/edit this. The issue is legality,
which of course is what pays the lawyer's salaries, and they thrive on
the deep, twisted meanining of innocent words to hang you by your tongue
(or fingers, for the written word). 

This file provides a lot of value in the sharing of our opinions on
various topics, including equipment, shops, etc. I suggest that we can
uphold the spirit of the preceding warning, as well as adding more value
to the other noters, if comments like "Brand X servos stink" are omitted
(no information is shared anyway), and replace by "I found that the backlash
on my Brand X servos was excessive, and replaced them with Brand Y which
work good for me." This is a statement of fact (the fact that it's an
opinion and opinions don't necessarily need to be completely justified),
and also invites direct affirmation/rebuttal by others who may have experience
with Brands X and Y.

If we have to go any further than that then I'm afraid we won't be able
to have any meaningful communication at all. Perhaps a good approach when
writing your message is to imagine it's you that's being talked about.
If someone says "Hughes is a big jerk", that's pretty offensive, and might
get me pretty upset. If someone says "In my opinion, Hughes is a big jerk,
because he shot down my airplane", then it's a lot harder for me to get
offended, first because it's clearly stated as an opinion, and second because
there's some explanation about the reason for the opinion, which allows
open discussion to substantiate or refute the explanation ("It wasn't me
that shot you down, it was that big jerk Henderson!").

Dave

    Dave,
    
    	A small nit. In your example "Daves a big jerk", you make the
    assumption that you hear the remark and might even have the opportunity
    to respond.
    
    	If I say XYZ hobbies are a bunch of ripoffs, XYZ hobbies doesn't
    have the opportunity to respond which is where the potential legal
    problems come in.
    
    	The rest of your note, however, makes perfect sense to me.
    
    Steve

    First let me state up front that I am against the type of liableous
    comment that conveys no information, apart from a series of expletives
    about a product, a manufacturer or service provider. Any 'review'
    should be objective, neutral, and have supporting evidence.
    
    However, consider this. Many products, including our own, have these
    cute little clauses and disclaimers. You know the type:
    
    "The information in this document is subject to change without notice
    and should not be construed as a commitment by Digital Equipment
    Corporation. Digital Equipment Corporation assumes no responsibility
    for any errors that may appear in this document."
    
    The other good one is 'Company X reserves the right to change the
    specification, design, or components, without notice or responsibilty'.
    
    In many cases, customers have not bought what they thought they
    did, or what the literature claimed. So in the cases where companies
    are being 'economical with the truth' or hide behind this disclaimer
    when something doesn't work, do we not have the right to bring these 
    little discrepencies to the notice of fellow customers; in an
    objective, neutral, and professional manner.
    
    One final point: What ever happened to the freedom of speech, as
    enshrined in the American constitution?
    
    Or is it freedom of speech, provided you can afford the court case?
    
    Angus

    re  1.16     freedom of speech
    
    We do have that freedom, Angus, but the issue here in the Notes
    conference is not freedom, it is favor.  Digital allows these very
    obvious hobby uses of their facilities for several reasons, but
    from our perspective it is a privilege, not a right.  If we annoy
    our sponsor, we can thereafter exercise our freedom in another medium, 
    not Digital's network.  I don't see any contract requiring Digital
    to provide me with this facility.  On the contrary, they have in
    writing told me the rules of behavior.  
    
    Alton, the [judicious] maverick.

    We have lost our account on WEWAND, the account that had been used 
    for file maintenance.  So the archives in [RYDER.PUBLIC] and the RC11
    files in [RYDER.LISTS] are gone.  Future archives will go to private
    storage, and I will institute a new procedure for RC11.*

    I will actively MAIL copies of RC11.* whenever they are updated to
    whomever asks to be on the distribution list.  I think this will
    actually be an improvement over the previous process; the files will
    appear in your NEWMAIL folder in the middle of the night.  To get on
    the list,   "Notes> SEND/AUTHOR"     etc.

    The files will require about 3,000 blocks on your disk.  For those who
    have not been using these files, they are:
    
        rc11.k	a directory of keyword directories = ~ 11.1
        rc11.c	a concatenation of keyword directories (11.3-11.last)
        rc11.t	a directory of topics = 11.2
        rc11.a	a directory of _all_ entries   (= DIR *.*)
    
    The benefits of and procedure for using them are described in RC note 2.2

    Here, extracted and copied without permission, is how one non-business
    notesfile responded to the memo from Dan Infante.  Included at the end
    is Infante's response which is positive and sounds encouraging
    regarding the continued existence of RC-Notes.  I believe our
    moderators should read, extract and archive this reply for possible
    future use in defense of RC-Notes, should its existence ever become
    threatened.  My fervent wish is that RC-Notes continues to flourish, 
    even though I will shortly be deprived of it, perhaps one of the hardest 
    parts of leaving DEC that I have to deal with!
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
            <<< COMET::COMET$DISK8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RECORDS.NOTE;3 >>>        
                             -< RECORDS ON VINYL >-
================================================================================
Note 1245.9                  No Backups Will Be Done                     9 of 10
COMET::SYSTEM                                       104 lines   5-DEC-1990 13:05
                           -< Backups Will Continue >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	IMTDEV::BENNETT "Leo Bennett 522-3108  04-Dec-1990 1122"  4-DEC-1990 
11:29:58.46
To:	MTS$::"VRO::DAN INFANTE"
CC:	@SIMGITMGRS,@SWREGION,@SSTAFF,@PSTAFF,@IMTSTAFF,BENNETT
Subj:	NON-BUSINESS NOTES CONFERENCES

Danny,

We got your memo last week re non-business notes conferences.  After
some thoughtful consideration, and discussion with the Manufacturing and 
Site Staffs, we decided to go more for the intent of your memo than the
letter.

Our first consideration was to avoid, if possible, sending another negative 
message to the population.  (Your memo was on the heels of Murv Lackey's
memo, which is widely interpreted as 'don't buy post-its and paper clips.'
While that's an unfair interpretation, it highlites the frame of mind of
the population.)  Sustaining productive morale is already very difficult 
in these times.

Second, we took a look at the literal implementation of you memo, and 
observed that if we marked those conferences (we have seven here) as
'no backup', that would automatically mean 'no restore', so we would be 
starting a Russian roulette game in which the first recovery would totally
delete each entire conference.  We don't believe that was the intent.

Third, we measured the resources used by these conferences, and found that
supporting all seven cost us as follows:

	120K blocks of storage, or about 5% of an RA90;

	In our COMET time sharing cluster, 0.85% of the VUPS;

	In our local network, less than 1% of capacity;

	For backups, $50/year for tape cartridges (the process is automated,
	so there is no labor).

	Local users access these files about 40 times a day (8-5).

The opportunity for cost savings here is not commensurate with the employee 
relations cost.  Especially since we have legitimized the existence and 
use of non-business notes files in the Personnel Policy (6.54).

We also found that some of these conferences serve business purposes
as well, and also serve as an excellent lightning rod for employee feelings.
For example, because the Colorado Notes file was available, some employee 
venting was done, which surfaced a communications issue which was then 
handled, rather than festering.

While it does not appear that significant resources are needed to support
non-business notes files, we are very concerned about the tendency for a
small percentage of the population to spend an inordinate amount of business
time pouring through these notes files.  At both staffs, we agreed that
this behavior is a performance issue, not a systems issue, and to ask
managers and supervisors to step up to the responsibility to manage the
situation.

We are initiating several actions as a result of your memo:

	1)  Place additional emphasis on employee responsibilities
	(through supervision) as above.

	2)  Establish disk quotas for the conferences, and perform
	file maintenance to reduce space and improve performance.

	3)  Place additional emphasis on conference moderator 
	responsibilities.

We are all concerned about the company's cost problems, and have taken
action on many fronts to help relieve it, by curtailed spending, deferred
work, and downsizing.  With the thought that we want the company which 
emerges from all this to have a motivated population, with most of the 
core values intact, we have concluded that a major intervention in the 
non-business notes area offers very little absolute return, and a poor
relative return compared to the adverse impact on the work environment.

We think that the  actions we have initiated will get much of the available
return with little or none of the adverse impact.

Best wishes,

Leo 


From:	NAME: Dan Infante                   
	FUNC: IM&T HQ                         
	TEL: 273-5464                         <INFANTE.DAN AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>
To:	NAME: BENNETT <BENNETT@IMTDEV@IMTDEV@MRGATE@MODELA@CXO>


Leo,

My note was precipitated by John's and the suggestion to reduce cost.

You hit the nail on the head.  It is a managerial problem.  Your
action was right on.

Thanks for the feedback.

Regards,

Dan

    Well, actually, there was already a note posted that informed everyone
    about the move (in addition to the conference title and notice).  Take
    a look at the last couple of notes in 1.*...
    
    But, just in case it got missed, I reposted it again so anyone still
    looking there should have it come up next time they open the file...
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Yup, RC_SWAP is gone...  Just reply to note 6 here with your
    wanted or for sales...
    
    enjoy,
    jeff
    

I've got some of the same type carbon fiber as you do(.007 variety.) All you 
have to do is make a small cut at the width you need, and then just rip it 
apart. Work great and you get a nice straight piece at the width you require. 
Only takes a second and no more cut off finger tips. Tom(of Tom's Hobby Korner)
told me about the trick.

-Lamar 

    Sorry for the unexpected down time...  My system crapped out on Tuesday
    and they didn't get it up and running till last night.
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

I went to find the flight simulator note and found that the keywords
have not been updated since June.  I know things are hard now, but can
I suggest that we archive this conference and start afresh?  This will
help keep the keyword index fairly accurate, and well, isn't it about
time to do this?

It seems like this conference is being used a little more now, and
I've much appreciated the increase in activity from the other power
flyers.  I've also been around long enough, like most of the other
power types, to remember all the hoopla that went on a couple of years
ago.  I remember only too well!  Maybe we can all do this quietly this
time?  What say guys?

    I'm the last one to ask on this topic. :-)

    I too shall refrain... :-)
    
    Mr Miner has all of the procedures to update the keywords and had 
    volunteered to be the moderator.  Dan, any chance on you updating the
    keywords list and run the other cleanup stuff??
    
    OK, maybe I won't stay completely quiet.. sorry...  How does starting a 
    new file insure that the keywords are kept up to date?
    
    Side note - Are people have any access/performance problems??  The
    conference is still on my 3100 sitting on my desk so the performance
    for me is always good!
    
    jeff
    

My reasoning was that by write-locking this conference and starting
over, the keywords and other order that some have worked hard to
establish would not be further disarrayed.  By starting over, we
preserve this data bank and hopefully go on to create another one.

I think that our hopes of a "New Conference Order" that caused so much
trouble last time should be put aside in favor of more anarchy, or at
least something less rigid than the old proposed structure.

I suppose that if the file is maintained that would be a good thing to
do also, though I do think its time for another start.

If you could see me at the other end of your terminal you would find
me with my hat in my hand, trembling in fear of the wrath I might
create by making this suggestion.  

    Believe me, I too do not want (and hopefully will not allow) another
    instance of those long weeks/months of the past.
    
    I will try to touch base with Dan Miner (the "head" moderator) and talk
    it over with him.  (Be aware that I will be out of the office for 2
    weeks, so it might be the end of the month before I catch up with him).
    
    Please, do not tremble...  I will pull the plug on my workstation before
    any one friendship is lost over this topic.
    
    jeff
    

I read the DECRCM file also and I already have trouble referring back to stuff 
I read a month ago between the two files. I'm not sure that creating a third 
(the archive) file will solve anything. Most of the technical information is 
in this conference and all we need is to get the moderation under control. 
Trouble is this isn't the time to be concentrating on moderating. Queueing up 
Al's keyword command files to run once a week would help and takes minor (ha 
ha, a joke) moderator time to just fire it off the initial time (it was self 
requeueing, wasn't it?)

There's probably a bunch of threads that need to be moved and keyworded but I 
don't see that happening in the near future. The directories being current 
would help with finding new threads that were created in/as a topic and 
keyworded. Everyone can help by entering information and questions in the 
proper topic. Too many times we stay in one topic because reply is so easy.

It's too easy to just put in a reply that points people to topic xxx.yyy for
their info. Having to go out to the other conference to do the directory to 
find the reference is more trouble than the reply is worth in many cases. You 
have to make note of the note that you want to reply to when you come back from 
the archive file and... You see my point?

I'd vote to leave the file as it is and run some of the automated scripts 
against it to continue the updates like Al had running before he left. Maybe 
we need a moderator "group" to spread the thread sorting around so people can 
do it in their "spare" time rather than making it require a fulltime effort?

John,

<< soapbox  WARNING!!!>>

I don't think you should be afraid to make a suggestion and worry about a harsh
reprisal from the "powers that be." I hate to see people label the conference or
fellow RC'ers as "Car's only", "Wet flyers only", or "glider's only." I'm an
RC'er period! I enjoy hearing about all types of RC(cars, boats, and planes!)

Yes the conference does have a slant towards planes, but that shouldn't keep
an RC'er that is interested in boats out or feel like they shouldn't contribute.
I guess what I'm trying to say(as Abe Linclon said) "a house divided cannot
stand." 

This notesfile has been an unbelievable help to me in my RC hobby. I hope it 
continues to provide information for all RC'ers for a long, long time.

-Lamar

    Almost unoticed by all, the DECRCM file was recently closed and set to 
    read only. A new file was opened to allow a severe clean-up. So far a 
    whole bunch of lunchtime flying chit-chat has been cleared out and
    several old topics deleted. It seemed to work out OK.
    
    
    I would suggest that a common sense approach be taken. To expand; 
    
    o Set this file to read only but give it a new name. eg RC_NOTES_HIST
    
    o Open a new file under the current name RC_NOTES.
    
    o Transfer topics like "Who's who" and any that have been used in the
      last 3 months.
    
    o Post topic #1 to say where the history is being kept. 
    
    o Go from there.
    
    The problem always was the size of the file, not the access. Any form of
    a search would, a) be slow and, b) slow it down for others.
    
    I would go so far as to say that I would archive/close DECRCM if
    RC_NOTES was completely refreshed.
    
    Regards,
    
    Eric.
                            

Carrying over from the Evil One's note 1543.56--how's about we archive
this sucker and start over again?  No rules about creating and
replying to topics; we know where that got us last time!  Just start
over like a plain old notes file.  What say guys?

    Sounds good to me.  I never was one to be organized.   
    
    Charlie
    

Just to be polite, how about checking with Dan Miner first. As I recall, after
Al left Dan Asked for and recieved permission to be moderator for this file.

    I don't mind the banter in the other notes file, but I like to be able
    to find good stuff in here.  Ryder made it easy for us to find things. 
    Is that so bad?
    
    I vote to combine, but have both freedom and good access to info.
    
    My $.02
    
    -Joe 

    The issue always was performance. If you do a search of any kind in
    this file it takes forever.
    
    The HTA file is moved to a read only file once a Q. and then the active
    one is purged. That way it keeps the DIR to a couple of screens.
    
    This file could be made read only once a year and a new one started.
    The last time I suggested this global thermal neucl...etc began.
    
    I guess it is hard for folks to research a read only notes file?
    
    The HTA file is for silly banter and local chit chat, It is only
    censored  if the banter becomes inappropriate.
    
    E - who may test the American Dalotel tomorrow.
                                    

    Forgive my ignorence to all the technical jargon about what to do with
    this notesfile,I'll put it simply!
     Since getting into R/C I have found this notesfile very useful,very
    easy to access and find what I want using the DIR command,I havn't
    found it slow at all.My experiance of read only notesfiles is that
    access is lost becuase only a few people want to look back at the notes
    so there is not much pressure to get the notesfile back up and running
    when it goes down,not to mention the conversation on the topics
    included in the old notesfile will note be so good or easy.
    
    Tyrone
    

Deja' Vu...I wish I was the same age again as when those arguments
last went around.  

I'll put in my $.02

I'd like to see this file kept as a technical reference and an active 
moderator to do the housekeeping. Making it read only won't improve 
performance and just opens up the new file to the thousand questions 
already answered in here. We need to update the keyword directories 
once a month and USE keywords.

Why not open up the DECRCM notesfile to DEC-wide banter and keep this 
technical?

I know Dan is flat out (on a project I'm involved with) so maybe there 
should be several moderators to take up the slack?

    Gee, this all sounds so familiar.  8^(

    
    Notes conferences are used for two things:

    	- transient distributed conversations

          Topics such as "Who's going flying tonight" and "Let's go to the
    	  Cape this weekend!". These topics tend to be very transient - a
    	  week later, they are content-free noise. 

    	- storing knowledge across space and time
    
    	  Tips for workshop layout, construction practices, radio and kit
    	  reviews, etc. Some of these come out in conversation, but the
    	  best are the mini-tutorials people write in response to questions
    	  (Al Casey's fiberglassing notes and the "so you want to fly gliders"
    	  articles, setting up pull-pull linkages, and too many others to 
    	  mention.)

    I've witnessed several conferences where these two styles were mixed in
    the same conference, and it seems to cause a lot of stress. It can work
    if there is active moderation cleaning up the noise and shuffling notes
    around so there is some tidiness and order.
    
    This is one of my favorite conferences, and I often use it as an
    example of what a notes conference can be. It has a very high signal 
    to noise ratio. There is a lot of knowledge in here, and I've learned
    most of what I know of RC from it over the past 4 years or so.
    
    If you _must_ have another notes conference, perhaps we could partition
    it according to the two styles above? Maybe keep this conference as the
    place to ask and answer the eternal questions of RC, and make another 
    short-lived conference for casual conversations?
    
    This conference could use some work. It's been a couple of years since
    it's last real cleaning, and it could use some sprucing up. (It's
    starting to be like my basement - I know what I'm looking for is in
    there, but it might take a while to find it.)
    
    Also, sophisticated text retrieval technology is available, and if we
    applied these tools we could make search and retrieval much easier and
    faster.

    1. The DECRCM file is open to ALL.
    
    2. The proposal is to archive this rev of the RC Notes file not make RC
       notes read only.
    
    3. When I say DIR I mean DIR "XXX" *.* 
    
    E

Actually, I see archiving this file as a way of preserving the order
in it.  If we don't do this all the old stuff that's already been
keyworded and culled will be buried once again in the day-to-day
chatter we have here.

Personally, my original proposal was to actually make this file read
only and to start over again with Note 1.0...I read the recent notes
as a proposal to archive this conference at this moment in time and to
continue writing notes here.  I suppose this could have some value,
but I believe its a poor compromise to just continuing to write here
and let the file grow willy-nilly.

I was musing a couple of days ago about who the longest standing contributor to
this file could be.  I've been here since about 86 or so, but I think there
are others still among us who were here before me.  Kay--how about
you?  I will do a dir/author on the file tomorrow to see what my
oldest not is, even though I did wipe out some old ones in the Great
Purge of yesteryear.  Also, wasn't this file re-created at some point?

Gosh, its so nice to see us all smiling and happy with each other
again!

>are others still among us who were here before me.  Kay--how about

re: Recent proposals

First we should get a consensus on the "Problem statement".

I have no problems with this notes file the way it is.
I find access quite fast and info easy to find.  Jeff Friedrichs has 
been moderating some - if he needs help he can ask for volunteers.

So I would like to see us first agree that if we can't agree
on the problem we will never agree on the solution.

Agreed?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

I don't have a problem using the file either. I generally do a directory 
of 11.* and find the topic and then do a dir of that topic to find the 
reference and it works well. I've keyworded notes as I've found them 
interesting/useful but the 11.* notes aren't updated automatically 
anymore so they don't show up in those directories currently. Doing a 
dir *.* to find stuff will be slow, but there are better ways to do the 
same thing that aren't. The only problem I have is the directories not 
being updated and Al left the batch procedure behind so I think it's 
just a matter of requeuing the jobs to do it once a week/month.

I mentioned making the file read-only because that's what I assumed the 
archive would be made. I'd REALLY rather not have the file archived to 
tape and unavailable and we haven't heard any disk space complaints from 
Jeff (the host system is his) that would warrant that. I frequently 
refer back to old info in this file (multiple times a week) and really 
don't want to lose that capability. The chatter can (and in many glider 
cases IS) always be handled via email.

    re last few.
    
    I too use 11.* for searching for topics. I rarely do a dir/tit(le).
    Access has never been a problem and I would hate to see all the
    information removed to an archive. I go back and read notes on varied
    topics which have entries made years ago.
    
    If 11.* and keywords were kept uptodate life would be easier. If we
    could run Al's scripts and add keywords as appropriate all would be in
    order. A lot of notes could be consolidated and form single streams
    from base notes. 
    
    11.1 is where I start and if its not in there I would say that I could 
    miss a note that is relevant. There are many other notes files that are
    hard to get information out of due to none keyworded access.
    
    my $.02
    
    Eric.

  The idea isn't to delete this file....just write lock, rename it to something
like RC1 and open a brandy-new RC file.  All the old data will still be 
available by doing a OPEN RC1 at the Notes> prompt.  Only the name will change
to protect the innocent (sorry...wrong show).

  BTW - I'm not voting FOR or AGAINST the proposal!  I got my fill of that the
last 3 or 4 times this subject was brought up!  :^(


                     Jim

    
    Well, I'll put in my two penn'orth. I don't have too much trouble with
    performance on this conference. I like the fact that there's so much
    "historical" stuff in here, and I doubt that I'd find half of it if we
    went to a new conference.
    
    I'll put my hands up and admit to being undisciplined in the use of
    keywords, I'll do better in future!
    
    As for the "banter", well I love it! It really brightens my day to see
    a bit of wit flying around in here, and it's also nice that this is one
    conference where tempers rarely if ever seem to flare (much like my
    landings!). 
    
    I guess that this is a "vote" for the status quo.
    
    Cheers
    
    Nigel
     

    I have been considering the merging of RC notes and DECRCM notes for
    quite a while.
    
    Based on the way this topic and this subject went I think that I will 
    leave things as they are. Concensus is a failure word.
    
    Regards,
    
    Eric H.

    Would someone like to run the scripts to update 11.* etc ? 
    
    Eric.

    Well, it looks like I will have a little bit of spare time on my hands
    during the next few weeks.  As a result, I will try to clean things up
    a bit...  I will only delete obviously outdated material (such as event
    announcements, etc).  I will move some stuff around; but for the most
    part it will just be to keyword all of the new stuff..
    
    FWIW - We have had about 4000 new notes since May 1992.
    
    Also, advance notice...  This conference will be moving late this month
    or early December..  It's new home will be announced when I know it,
    but it will be in ZKO3! :-)  No, I am not going to take that
    opportunity to archive and start over.
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Hi All,
    
    Friday morning (3-Dec) this conference will be write locked and moved 
    to its new home.  To access it, you should...
    
    	Notes> modify entry rc/file=VMSZOO::RC
    
    See you all there!
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Well, we are finally ready to go!
    
    Sorry the conference was left nowrite, pilot error on my part...
    
    Please let me know if there are problems accessing, etc...
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    
    (Now at VMSSPT::FRIEDRICHS)
    

Jeff,

If you make me a moderator I will update the 11.* notes and help add
keywords etc to notes. I have all the scripts to do it.

Eric.

    Thats a bit radical Eric, having an across-the-pond moderator..

    
    The system that this conference is on (VMSZOO::) will be undergoing
    some hardware and software changes in the next week or so.  So, if you
    can't get to the file, that is probably why.  
    
    Sorry, there is no schedule of events as it is being done in "spare"
    time...
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Hi All,
    
    Well, sorry about that...  The tool that I was using to merge the
    2 conferences trashed RC.NOTE!!  ARRGGG!  That was on Thursday.
    
    However, this file is backed up every night so we were able to get
    it restored to Wed, 5-Oct (about 6:00pm...).  So, if you entered
    anything Thursday morning, it is gone...
    
    I will continue to try to merge the files (but use a copy of RC.NOTE
    to test with :-)) and will let everyone know how that goes..
    
    Cheers,
    jeff
    

    Hi All,
    
    As many of you know, the newsgroup rec.models.rc was recently split up
    into 4 groups, rec.models.rc.air; .water; .land; and .misc.  As a result,
    they have shut down the rec.models.rc newsgroup...
    
    I had been running a shadow copy (read only) notes conference for
    rec.models.rc so that those of you that do not have access or have not 
    learned how to use newsgroups could get at the info...
    
    So, yesterday I created 4 new conferences, again mirroring the 4
    newsgroups.  They are...
    
    	Notes> Add entry VMSZOO::REC_MODELS_RC_AIR
    	Notes> Add entry VMSZOO::REC_MODELS_RC_LAND
    	Notes> Add entry VMSZOO::REC_MODELS_RC_MISC
    	Notes> Add entry VMSZOO::REC_MODELS_RC_WATER
    
    Again, these conferences are set no-write.  They get updated every few 
    hours from the news server..
    
    Enjoy!
    jeff