Does this newsgroup have a charter?

[Not Obsessed <ruppen%sharlin.qal.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU>]

Richard Caldwell writes:

>Meanwhile, the whole question of what is and is not appropriate 
>material for Love-Hounds has reared it's head once again. ...The fact is that 
there must be some etiquette for what does and doesn't belong in Love-Hounds. 

as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:

>Must a newsgroup necessarily have a "main focus"?  Or can it have foci? 
>My impression of r.m.g. has been, until now, that the group was for Kate and
>Katelike artists.  I didn't know that there was a Gaffa Constitution that
>established One Artist and One Artist Only.
....
>The majority of followup postings seems to indicate that he is in
>the minority.  End of Story.  There shalt be no ban.

Not quite. Nowadays all non-alt newsgroups have a charter posted at their
creation. Among other things, the charter will say what subject matter the
newsgroup intends to cover - in other words, what is appropriate content for
the newsgroup. In an ideal world, all those posting to it would be aware 
of what was appropriate to the group and stick to the charter. In practice,
with most groups this happens, more or less. Sometimes enough for most people,
but rarely enough for all, as even with a charter, different people will have
a different idea of what is appropriate.

Comparing this group with the other 3 single-entity dedicated music groups,
rec.music.beatles, rec.music.dylan, rec.music.gdead, one would immediately
be struck by how large a percentage of the postings in .gaffa aren't related
to the group's ostensible focus, relative to the other 3 groups. Whether this is
a good thing or not is debatable - but single artist newsgroups were generally
started to focus on one artist.

Does this group have a charter? I don't know. But the creator of this group,
Doug Alan, still checks in from time to time. He would know. And if there is
a charter, perhaps he should post it. (And repost it from time, perhaps, to
minimize this topic's reappearances.) Then maybe once and for all we will know
whether this group is devoted  only to Kate, or to  Kate and anyone whose
music in any way vaguely resembles her music. 

The whole issue might not matter that much if the non-Kate material didn't
at times (most of the time?) swamp the Kate material. Not so long ago we were
treated to what seem like an interminable flame war between a couple of regulars
here, then the Happy gushings, and now lots of news about Tori this and that,
with the occasional Peter Gabriel, Sarah McLachlan, or Jane Siberry thrown in.
No offense meant, and I really do like all those artists (except for Happy,
with whom I'm not familiar), but they generally have little to do with Kate. 

Please don't interpret this as my saying what is or isn't appropriate for
this newsgroup. It isn't. I'm merely pointing out that most newgroups have
a focus, usually set down in writing in the form of a charter. If this group
has one, then it would be nice if people generally kept to it. If the group
doesn't have one, then, unless Kate starts putting out albums more often there
will be a lot of non-Kate related postings.

(ObKate: I'm so tired of music reviewers being so limited in imagination that
half the new female artists who come down the road get described as sounding
somewhat like Kate Bush. Example: NPR did a spot last month on Sarah McLachlan
wherein she was compared to Kate Bush and Joni Mitchell. Wrong. Joni Mitchell,
somewhat, but Kate? Hardly.)

Andy Ruppenstein
(ruppen@qal.berkeley.edu)