farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (12/07/89)
I like Murph's suggestion for the name of the newsgroup : comp.tech.apple2. I would like to adopt this name for the newsgroup, it's shorter and to the point. Let's here some discussion on it... As far as the moderation issue, it is a very good point. Unfortunately, moderation requires a large investment of time and energy, neither of which is readily available. True, there will be non-tech messages posted to the tech group and tech messages posted to the non-tech group, but hopefully this will be minimal. I have noticed the comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech groups manage to separate their posts for the most part, I think we could do the same if we tried. FYI: Providing that everything goes well, I will post a call for votes on Monday, 12/11/89. The voting period will end on Monday, 01/08/90. This will allow 28 days to vote. The reason that I am holding an extended vote is to allow an extra week for students, vacationers, and those who have too much fun on New Year's Eve to get their votes in. If everyone is willing, I will hold the vote on the group under the name comp.tech.apple2, instead of comp.sys.apple2.tech. Cary Farrier -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) (12/07/89)
In article <37045@apple.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: Path: oracle!pyramid!voder!apple!farrier From: farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Date: 6 Dec 89 19:17:40 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 33 I like Murph's suggestion for the name of the newsgroup : comp.tech.apple2. I would like to adopt this name for the newsgroup, it's shorter and to the point. Let's here some discussion on it... As far as the moderation issue, it is a very good point. Unfortunately, moderation requires a large investment of time and energy, neither of which is readily available. True, there will be non-tech messages posted to the tech group and tech messages posted to the non-tech group, but hopefully this will be minimal. I have noticed the comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.tech groups manage to separate their posts for the most part, I think we could do the same if we tried. FYI: Providing that everything goes well, I will post a call for votes on Monday, 12/11/89. The voting period will end on Monday, 01/08/90. This will allow 28 days to vote. The reason that I am holding an extended vote is to allow an extra week for students, vacationers, and those who have too much fun on New Year's Eve to get their votes in. If everyone is willing, I will hold the vote on the group under the name comp.tech.apple2, instead of comp.sys.apple2.tech. Cary Farrier -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I think I have to object... there is precedence set in this matter, with comp.sys.mac comp.sys.mac.hardware comp.sys.mac.programmer The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the creation of comp.tech.apple... Please is a vote is taken, first change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was done with the comp.sys.mac groups)
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (12/08/89)
In article <PNAKADA.89Dec6161004@pnakada.oracle.com> pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: >I think I have to object... there is precedence set in this matter, >with >comp.sys.mac >comp.sys.mac.hardware >comp.sys.mac.programmer I don't see the precedence here. What I do see is an over done group hierarchy. >The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the >creation of comp.tech.apple... Please is a vote is taken, first >change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create >comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was >done with the comp.sys.mac groups) Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) (12/08/89)
In article <37089@apple.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: Path: oracle!apple!farrier From: farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Date: 7 Dec 89 18:21:47 GMT References: <37045@apple.Apple.COM> <PNAKADA.89Dec6161004@pnakada.oracle.com> Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA Lines: 30 In article <PNAKADA.89Dec6161004@pnakada.oracle.com> pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: >I think I have to object... there is precedence set in this matter, >with >comp.sys.mac >comp.sys.mac.hardware >comp.sys.mac.programmer I don't see the precedence here. What I do see is an over done group hierarchy. >The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the >creation of comp.tech.apple... Please is a vote is taken, first >change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create >comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was >done with the comp.sys.mac groups) Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Cary, I've cross posted this discussion to news.groups. I'm pretty sure that discussions like this should involve people from all newsgroups. I must heartily state that I am all for the creation of a new technical newsgroup. I must disagree with you when you call the mac newgroups, "an overdone group hierarchy." I would much rather have an overdone group hierarchy, than none at all. What you suggest is grouping the discussion first by its technical nature and then by its particular hardware platform, while most groups which need additional focus, add on to the platform grouping. comp.sys.amiga.tech rec.autos.tech The argument could be made that the comp.binaries groups follow your particular hierarchy, with the platform as the last grouping. This is true, but I think that the precedence set by other groups and the fact that the comp.tech branch does not exist yet is enough reason to go with comp.sys.apple.tech or comp.sys.apple2.tech Again, I stress that I wan tthe new group created, but I also want to try to avoid adding to what many people call the USENET anarchy. -Paul Nakada pnakada@oracle.com
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (12/08/89)
In article <37089@apple.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: >In article <PNAKADA.89Dec6161004@pnakada.oracle.com> pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: >>I think I have to object... there is precedence set in this matter, >>with >>comp.sys.mac >>comp.sys.mac.hardware >>comp.sys.mac.programmer >>The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the >>creation of comp.tech.apple... Please is a vote is taken, first >>change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create >>comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was >>done with the comp.sys.mac groups) > Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does > not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name > comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. This has nothing to do with "Macintosh people". USEnet is an anarchic collection of sites that depends entirely upon voluntary cooperation with established conventions and procedures in order to keep from utterly disintegrating into chaos. The USEnet news group naming scheme has been worked out to permit reasonable "pattern matching" on groups being subscribed to by individuals or sites. comp.sys.SYSTEM_TYPE is the proper newsgroup name for traffic about computer systems of type SYSTEM_TYPE. If you don't approve of using "apple" to designate the Apple II line, then change it to "apple2" (and perhaps add "apple2gs" for 16-bit specific topics); that fits the established naming scheme. If you want to participate in USEnet, it is incumbent on you to cooperate with the aforemented procedures and conventions. Your personal beliefs about how it "should have been done" are irrelevant.
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) (12/08/89)
I must agree with Paul Nakada. comp.sys.apple2 comp.sys.apple2.programming This way, when a new user does "g comp.sys.apple" from within RN, he gets both the newsgroups. And what does it matter if the name is concise? A person would only need to type the monstrosity once, after that both notes and rn take it from there. -- Jawaid Bazyar | This message was posted to thousands of machines Junior/Computer Engineering | throughout the entire civilized world. It cost jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | the net hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars.
rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com (raymond r rankins) (12/08/89)
I agree with the growing consensus. Let's stick to USENET conventions. Change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and let's add comp.sys.apple2.tech. Ray --- Ray Rankins | (518) 387-7340 | INTERNET: rankins@zaire.crd.ge.com 2 Moonglow Rd. | (518) 583-3320 | COMPUSERVE: 71131,3236 Gansevoort, NY 12831 | | AmericaOnline: RayRankins <insert standard disclaimer here>
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (12/10/89)
In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) I'd have to agree with those that advocate keeping to the existing scheme of things as far as group names go. The length of the name is not a factor, it's the format that matters in this case. I'd be in favor of renaming comp.sys.apple -> comp.sys.apple2 and also for creating comp.sys.apple2.tech, but I'd be against the comp.tech.<whatever> where <whatever> is a specific computer type. btw- I don't think the comp.sys.apple2.tech group would gain us a lot, but it's certainly worth a shot. I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amiga and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which just increases the density instead of splitting it into more manageable chunks. Maybe we Apple users could do it better, though.... hope! hope! -Rich Sims- UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!rich ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!rich@nosc.mil INET: rich@pro-exchange.cts.com
ART100@PSUVM.BITNET (Andy Tefft) (12/11/89)
In article <15801.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) says: > >btw- I don't think the comp.sys.apple2.tech group would gain us a lot, but >it's certainly worth a shot. I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amiga >and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which >just increases the density instead of splitting it into more manageable >chunks. I don't see how crossposting really is that big of a problem. Most news systems/readers only store/forward crossposted articles once and you only have to see them once. Doesn't really increase volume at all. The only worry is having to read them at all, and there would still be a substantial savings there, i.e. not ALL articles would be crossposted.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/11/89)
On Sun, 10 Dec 89 18:06:27 GMT you said: >In article <15801.apple.info-apple@pro-exchange>, rich@pro-exchange.cts.com >(Rich Sims) says: >>...I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amiga >>and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which >>just increases the density... > >I don't see how crossposting really is that big of a problem. Most news >systems/readers only store/forward crossposted articles once and you only have >to see them once. Doesn't really increase volume at all. What's true for USENET is NOT true for the rest of the systems the lists would be cross posted to. Both Internet and BITNET subscribers WOULD get duplicates. My own interest in the proposed tech list is low enough that I probably won't subscribe to it; certainly I won't if it's an unmoderated free-for-all. Members of local user groups probably would appreciate the output of an organized tech list. I'm inclined to vote 'no' unless the tech list is moderated (that doesn't have to mean an edited digest by the way). There has been some private mail seeking to persuade a likely candidate (someone who'd read the whole list and answer a substantial number of the questions anyway) to agree to moderate the traffic (so far, no definate answer). /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) (12/12/89)
In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM
If you want a group with a sub name of tech.apple2, then may I humbly suggest
that you try alt.tech.apple2 . In the alt distribution (which is
traditionally much smaller than comp) you can create any sort of name that you
wish - note that at least one alt group is one of the top five groups in terms
of folks reading (alt.sex).
Oh, and the current two Apple 2 groups are in the top 20 in terms of cost per
user - its costs about 40 cents per message per user per month to post msgs
to usenet... I wish America Online and CIS were so cheap!
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (12/12/89)
In article <3443.feeds.info-apple@pro-tcc> lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) writes: >try alt.tech.apple2 NO -- many USEnet sites do not get the alt.* traffic.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (12/13/89)
On Mon, 11 Dec 89 23:21:30 EST Larry Virden said: >In-Reply-To: message from farrier@Apple.COM >note that at least one alt group is one of the top five groups in terms >of folks reading (alt.sex). Gee is that an ALTernative to sex (comic books?), ALTernate sex (male, female, other?), or ALTered sex (Kristine Jorgensen & Renee Richards? ;-) >Oh, and the current two Apple 2 groups are in the top 20 in terms of cost per >user - its costs about 40 cents per message per user per month to post msgs Is the the 20 MOST or LEAST expensive per user (lately this list seems to be reaching for economies of scale -- well 'scale,' i.e., volume, at least)? /s Murph <Sewall%UConnVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu> [Internet] or ...{psuvax1 or mcvax}!uconnvm.bitnet!sewall [UUCP] + Standard disclaimer applies ("The opinions expressed are my own" etc.)
UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) (12/13/89)
Time : 12-DEC-1989 22:26 > (Rich Sims) says: > > > >btw- I don't think the comp.sys.apple2.tech group would gain us a lot, but > >it's certainly worth a shot. I base that on my readings of the comp.sys.amig a Why is it worth a shot? > >and amiga.tech groups, where most articles are cross-posted to both, which > >just increases the density instead of splitting it into more manageable > >chunks. It seems to me you are agreeing to the split when you have cause to believe it is not a good idea. > > I don't see how crossposting really is that big of a problem. Most news > systems/readers only store/forward crossposted articles once and you only have > to see them once. Doesn't really increase volume at all. Perhaps this is not a problem for people who read this newsgroup from a newsreader, but for folks (like me) who only can get this newsgroup via mail it means a great deal of duplication and more mail to sift through. Posting to both groups is going to increase my mail volume considerably, or at least that is my fear. In order to ease another fear (that of missing something important) I will have to subscribe to both groups. So just say no to the two groups. P.S. From all I read it seems that everyone is leaning toward the split (except me). What if it doesn't really work? What if it causes duplication, or some unknown, unforeseen other problem? Can the split be undone? > is having to read them at all, and there would still be a substantial > savings there, i.e. not ALL articles would be crossposted. But what about all the articles that will be crossposted? -------- "Keep On Rocking in a Free World" UNESTJ@uncvx1.bitnet <Tamara>
nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (12/13/89)
In article <37089@apple.Apple.COM>, farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does > not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name > comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. Or, to take this to an extreme, since everyone seems to want to do something about this: comp.apple2 comp.apple2.tech Those names are short and descriptive and have a hierarchy also. Can we please stop flippin' out over the names already and decide to form the new group? For what it's worth, I favor a technically oriented Apple II newsfeed, and I also favor the names I just proposed to keep everyone happy. If rename comp.sys.apple to comp.apple2, folks will finally stop posting stuff meant for the Macintosh onto our feed, taking up unnecessary bandwidth, and those folks whose news software automatically scans feeds by hierarchy will still be able to read the normal group first and then the tech group. And, those poor souls who don't like banging on their keyboard won't have to type "comp.sys.apple2.tech" andy -- Andy Nicholas GEnie, AM-Online: shrinkit Box 435, Moravian College CompuServe: 70771,2615 Bethlehem, PA 18018 InterNET: shrinkit@moravian.edu
lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) (12/13/89)
In-Reply-To: message from gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL
They may not all get alt, but quite a few do. And if someone wants a
particular alt, it probably would be no less difficult to get one than to get
one of the normal groups. My argument is that if you really WANT a group, and
dont care to follow the rules, then it should be done in the alt group.
Otherwise you are bucking the system and in for a rough ride.
--
Larry W. Virden ProLine: pro-tcc!lvirden
674 Falls Place Work: lvirden@cas.bitnet
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 Aline: LVIRDEN
CIS: 75046,606pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) (12/14/89)
In article <706@batman.moravian.EDU> nicholaA@batman.moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: In article <37089@apple.Apple.COM>, farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: > Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does > not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name > comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. Or, to take this to an extreme, since everyone seems to want to do something about this: comp.apple2 comp.apple2.tech Those names are short and descriptive and have a hierarchy also. Can we please stop flippin' out over the names already and decide to form the new group? geez.. Why do you need to have such a short newgroup name? the only time that you need to type it is when you post a new article? and comp.sys.apple is too long?? you haven't really taken it to it's extreme... the extreme would be apple2 apple2tech or apple2.tech (descriptive and hierarchical) that way we would not be restricted to comp type issues in these groups.. I think this shows why precedence is important in the structure of USENET... the net is already cluttered and unorganized; our adding to this disorder does no one any good. Perhaps, further postings should be cross posted to news.groups, as I think that the rules governing newsgroup creation state that discussion of this type should appear both in comp.sys.apple, and news.groups.. Cary? do you want to take the lead? -Paul Nakada nakada@oracle.com
rich@pro-exchange.cts.com (Rich Sims) (12/14/89)
In-Reply-To: message from UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) >> (Rich Sims) says: >> btw- I don't think the comp.sys.apple2.tech group would gain us a lot, but >> it's certainly worth a shot. > Why is it worth a shot? Because I'm an "eternal optimist" and I know that it *could* work very well if we all do our part.
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (12/15/89)
In article <PNAKADA.89Dec13131703@pnakada.oracle.com> pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: > >Perhaps, further postings should be cross posted to news.groups, as I >think that the rules governing newsgroup creation state that >discussion of this type should appear both in comp.sys.apple, and >news.groups.. Cary? do you want to take the lead? I recently posted the call for votes for the new group, with the name comp.sys.apple2.tech. As it turns out, the USENET gods didn't like creating a new hierarchy :-). The point is, now that the voting has begun, the parameters of the group can't change, so the name would be comp.sys.apple2.tech if the voters decide they want the group. > >-Paul Nakada >nakada@oracle.com Cary Farrier -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
UNESTJ@UNCVX1.BITNET (Tamara) (12/15/89)
Time : 14-DEC-1989 22:55 > > This way, when a new user does "g comp.sys.apple" from within RN, Who says all users have access to RN or any news reader. I sure wish I did, but alas I DON'T! Which makes me wonder what percentage of folks have to use mail to read this newsgroup? Is there any way to record this whilest you take a vote Cary? -------- "Keep On Rocking in a Free World" UNESTJ@uncvx1.bitnet <Tamara>
brianw@microsoft.UUCP (Brian Willoughby) (12/15/89)
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: >pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada) writes: >>The USENET is set up in a hierarchy which would be upset with the >>creation of comp.tech.apple... Please is a vote is taken, first >>change comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 and then create >>comp.sys.apple2.tech or preferably comp.sys.apple2.programmer (as was >>done with the comp.sys.mac groups) > > Just because the Macintosh people did something one way, does > not mean that the Apple II people must follow suit. The name > comp.tech.apple2 is short and concise. Let the vote decide whether we follow the Mac or Amiga naming, no sense in arguing. BUT I agree with Paul: changing comp.sys.apple to comp.sys.apple2 is a simple decision (I would say a necessity, since many posters think that comp.binaries.apple2 is the only apple2 group), and it should be voted on as a separate issue from the more debatable addition and/or naming of any technical offshoot. Brian Willoughby UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw InterNet: microsoft!brianw@uunet.UU.NET or: microsoft!brianw@Sun.COM Bitnet brianw@microsoft.UUCP
prl3546@tahoma.UUCP (Philip R. Lindberg) (12/16/89)
From article <11802@smoke.BRL.MIL>, by gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn): > In article <3443.feeds.info-apple@pro-tcc> lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com (Larry Virden) writes: >>try alt.tech.apple2 > > NO -- many USEnet sites do not get the alt.* traffic. Second that No.
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (12/19/89)
I take it voting has begun? If so, here's my vote: comp.sys.apple changed to comp.sys.apple2 YES creation of comp.sys.apple2.tech YES There you have it. -- Dave Whitney dcw@sun-bear.lcs.mit.edu ...!mit-eddie!sun-bear!dcw dcw@athena.mit.edu My employer pays me well. This, however, does not mean he agrees with me. I wrote Z-Link & BinSCII. Send me bug reports. I use a //GS. Send me Tech Info.
matthew@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun Visualization Products) (12/24/89)
We currently have a 'Call for Votes' going on for 'comp.sys.apple2.tech',
but still do not have a call for discussion/vote for changing the name of
'comp.sys.apple' to 'comp.sys.apple2'.
This is little bit of 'the cart before the horse' methodology, and needs
to be corrected.
Will the previous 'Call for Discussion' for 'comp.sys.apple2.tech' also
cover 'comp.sys.apple2' so we can go into a vote on the name change as
soon as possible, or will we need to start a new 'Call for Discussion'
time clock running?
P.S. Mail your 'comp.sys.apple2.tech' votes to "farrier@apple.com"
P.S.S Where can one receive an electronic copy of the rules concerning
'Call for Discussion' and 'Call for Votes'?
--
Matthew Lee Stier |
Sun Microsystems --- RTP, NC 27709-3447 | "Wisconsin Escapee"
uucp: sun!mstier or mcnc!rti!sunpix!matthew |
phone: (919) 469-8300 fax: (919) 460-8355 |farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (01/03/90)
In article <1041@friar-taac.UUCP> matthew@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun Visualization Products) writes: >We currently have a 'Call for Votes' going on for 'comp.sys.apple2.tech', >but still do not have a call for discussion/vote for changing the name of >'comp.sys.apple' to 'comp.sys.apple2'. > >This is little bit of 'the cart before the horse' methodology, and needs >to be corrected. > >Will the previous 'Call for Discussion' for 'comp.sys.apple2.tech' also >cover 'comp.sys.apple2' so we can go into a vote on the name change as >soon as possible, or will we need to start a new 'Call for Discussion' >time clock running? > > >P.S. Mail your 'comp.sys.apple2.tech' votes to "farrier@apple.com" I was wondering when someone would notice this :-). Any volunteers to champion this one? I'm pressed enough for time with the 'tech' group. > >P.S.S Where can one receive an electronic copy of the rules concerning > 'Call for Discussion' and 'Call for Votes'? news.announce.newusers (or something along those lines). >Matthew Lee Stier | >Sun Microsystems --- RTP, NC 27709-3447 | "Wisconsin Escapee" >uucp: sun!mstier or mcnc!rti!sunpix!matthew | >phone: (919) 469-8300 fax: (919) 460-8355 | -- +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Cary Farrier | Internet : farrier@apple.com | | Apple II Systems Software Engineering | UUCP : apple!farrier | | Apple Computer, Inc. | Fax : (408) 974-1704 | | 20525 Mariani Ave. | AppleLink : FARRIER | | Cupertino, CA 95014 | or farrier@applelink.apple.com | +---------------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | I don't speak for Apple Computer, our products do. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) (01/04/90)
In article <37567@apple.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: <In article <1041@friar-taac.UUCP> matthew@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun Visualization Products) writes: <>We currently have a 'Call for Votes' going on for 'comp.sys.apple2.tech', <>but still do not have a call for discussion/vote for changing the name of <>'comp.sys.apple' to 'comp.sys.apple2'. <>P.S. Mail your 'comp.sys.apple2.tech' votes to "farrier@apple.com" < < I was wondering when someone would notice this :-). < Any volunteers to champion this one? I'm pressed enough < for time with the 'tech' group. I will do it. I will wait a few days to make sure no one else starts one. Watch this space... ->Spike spike@world.std.com ...!{uunet,bu.edu,xylogics}!world!spike -- "The World" - Public Access Unix - +1 617-739-9753 24hrs {3,12,24}00bps