Re: Do we need more subgroups. #poll

Jim Gifford - K9AGR

That sounds like a reasonable way to handle it to me.

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Russell, KV4S <russelljthomas@...> wrote:

without making it "complicated". The destination would be the topic name.
I think we can assume DMR is the core mode. I don't think I've seen a bridge system someone has worked on that hasn't inluded DMR in the mix with the exception of one i'll talk about later.

I would think subgroups would be Allstar (we already have), main (already have for DMR and general), D-STAR, YSF, P25, NXDN. if you post in those subgroups then the assumption you are tying to bridge dmr to that mode. 

In the case of one i saw was allstar to YSF then you would probably pick YSF group and notate in the subject ASL <> YSF. 

i think this would keep things mostly separated as for topic discussions.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:02 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> 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 <szingman@...> 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. 


Join to automatically receive all group messages.