This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of the unmoderated newsgroup, rec.food.cooking.   This RFD is being posted to news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, rec.food.cooking, rec.food.drink, rec.food.historic, rec.food.recipes, rec.food.sourdough, rec.food.veg and rec.food.veg.cooking, with followups set to news.groups.  All discussion regarding this proposal should take place in news.groups. Rationale: Rec.food.cooking has been a high-volume newsgroup for several years, and the subject of splitting has been brought up with a fair amount of regularity.  Traditionally, rec.food.cooking has been an amazingly civil, calm and flame-free newsgroup, so a split never seemed to be justified. However, in recent weeks the noise level and number of inappropriate posts has skyrocketed, and polite pointers to the FAQs (which usually did the trick before) now go ignored or become targets for flames.  I feel that splitting rec.food.cooking will help bring back the focus that it once had. Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups: rec.food.cooking.misc rec.food.cooking.cookware rec.food.cooking.recipes rec.food.cooking.books rec.food.cooking.discuss Charters: rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated)   What rfc used to be and should be.  For general cooking discussion.  This   newsgroup will replace rec.food.cooking. rec.food.cooking.cookware (unmoderated)   Bread machines, microwaves, crockpots, knives, cutting boards, glass-top   stoves, barbecues, cast iron, woks, Calphalon, aluminum, dehydrators, pasta   makers, rice cookers, etc. rec.food.cooking.recipes (unmoderated)   Recipes and requests.  Before you say that this is redundant with   rec.food.recipes, from moderating rec.food.recipes, I've discovered   that crossposting between rec.food.cooking and rec.food.recipes is   virtually non-existent.  Recipe management software discussion should   go in here as well. rec.food.cooking.books (unmoderated)   Cookbooks, cookbook authors, tv shows. rec.food.cooking.discuss (unmoderated)   For all the spam and tripe that currently plagues the group.  For flames,   rumors, controversial topics (such as food poisoning), the $250 cookie,   and those threads that bear marginal relevance that seem to go on forever   like, What did you have for dinner last night?   What is your favourite   fast food restaurant?   What is your least favourite fast food   restaurant?  Etc, etc. Discussion will run for a minumum of 21 days.  The newsgroups in this proposal are subject to change, and if major changes are necessary, the discussion period may be extended an additional 7 days. A Call for Votes (CFV) will be posted after the end of the discussion period.   The vote will be run by a neutral third party. This RFD attempts to fully comply with Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines set in How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup .  Please refer to this document if you have questions about the process.

Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups: rec.food.cooking.misc rec.food.cooking.cookware rec.food.cooking.recipes rec.food.cooking.books rec.food.cooking.discuss         A split of rec.food.cooking has been long overdue, and I think that the reorganization proposed here is generally sound and sensible. The *.cookware newsgroup and the *.discuss groups are definitely needed, although I wonder whether *.chat or something like that might not be a better name for the latter.  The rec.food.cooking.recipes proposal is certainly sound, but I do question whether or not it is really necessary to have both a moderated and an unmoderated recipes group.  What about the possibility of having r.f.c.recipes replacing rec.food.recipes?  (Not that I dislike r.f.r. or your job at moderating it, of course.)  The only group about which I have serious reservations, though, is *.books.  I've never really seen that much discussion of cookbooks on r.f.c.

rec.food.cooking.misc (unmoderated)   What rfc used to be and should be.  For general cooking discussion.  This   newsgroup will replace rec.food.cooking. You know, I have a problem with putting these new groups under rec.food.cooking

be better named as *.books-tv or *.media (or something comparable.) I just saw this.  I like this idea.

rec.food.cooking.misc rec.food.cooking.cookware rec.food.cooking.recipes rec.food.cooking.books rec.food.cooking.discuss I'm all for a split, but I think this proposal dices it a mite too fine.  I'd prefer to have .cookware, .books (or, as Jim Chokey suggests, .books-tv or whatever), and .chat, but not a separate recipes group.  It has nothing to do with the existence of r.f.r; I just don't want to see recipes and requests shouldered out of r.f.c.(.misc) and into a separate room.  Should the proposal be carried forward, I imagine I will read .misc regularly, as I currently read r.f.c, and pop into the others when I have the time or when I have a particular question. Recipes belong with .misc, says I. Rage away, meg

Proposal: rec.food.cooking be split into 5 unmoderated groups: rec.food.cooking.misc rec.food.cooking.cookware rec.food.cooking.recipes rec.food.cooking.books rec.food.cooking.discuss .snip again. I think that a split is needed, as dealing with up to 200 posts/day has become a chore, rather than a joy.  I think that five groups is perhaps too many.  I would suggest forming an r.f.c.equipment group, to pare off the the discussion of knives, cast iron and cooking pans that gets repeated several times a month.  So, I'd vote for a split, but I think five groups will dilute the interesting r.f.c stew Mark