I would understand that it is a number of subgroups, but I don't think as many as you state because you are counting some twice.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
DMR <> YSF would include YSF <> DMR
But in any case, a BRIDGING subgroup might be in order as a start till more is sorted out.
On 3/13/2019 1:44 PM, Jim Gifford - K9AGR wrote:
A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand. For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.
For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.
For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.
Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of. That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.
While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.
Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some. But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.
On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <email@example.com> wrote:
I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>
On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......
I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.
Example Allstar subgroup vs main.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>>> wrote:
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.