pbacon at vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
: I've found the debate re:network/no-network to be interesting and
: I'm surprised at the coolness of the response to the proposals offered.
: I would certainly be interested in participating from the Oxford
: Forestry Institute. My own interest is tropical botany and agricultural
: systems. The agroforestry network is very poorly used and perhaps a
: broader remit might encourage greater participation
I read bionet.agroforestry for a while before proposing bionet.botany
(now bionet.plants) and I was disappointed how little was posted. I've
had a reasonable e-mail response from bionet.* and sci.bio.* people who
are interested in bionet.plants but nothing like the 80 supporters that
would be needed to ensure the creation of a new group.
Maybe bionet.agroforestry *is* the place to discuss plant-related
issues but I feel that the name 'agroforestry' is open to the same sort
of mis-interpretation as bionet.botany was (ie. more specific than the
original proposers of this group actually intended). Could we perhaps
move the discussion of plant related issues over to bionet.agroforestry?
If a critical mass of botanists, plant biologists, or whatever plant
people want to call themselves start to read and post to
bionet.agroforestry we can all benefit without the creation of a new
group. I'd like to hear what the bionet.agroforestry people think
about this before we go any further.
If the consensus is that it is a good idea to move over to
bionet.agroforestry then I would like to advertise the existence of a
plant orientated discussion there on other related news groups or
mailing lists. I've had enough newsgroup politics for now and I'd like
to progress onto scientific matters.
Tony
--
Tony Travis <ajt at uk.ac.sari.rri> | Dr. A.J.Travis
| Rowett Research Institute,
| Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen,
| AB2 9SB. UK. tel 0224-712751
