templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (12/04/90)
Well, the last poster tied it up - my summary (see previous post) says 4 specifically want comp.sys.3b1 and four specifically comp.sys.att.3b1 (with 6 more who did not care.) How about a mini-vote, just on the NAME, with the two choices being comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sys.att.3b1 I don't think any other name has a chance in hell, so I'll ignore them. The source group name seems unanimous, comp.sources.3b1. Please mail (e-mail) your vote to me. Send something very close to 'I vote for comp.sys.3b1' or 'I vote for comp.sys.att.3b1'. This is the last remaining issue that I see. There are very few disagreements about other things. I will tabulate the votes after work Wednesday, to try and get all this to news.groups so we can have as little overlap with xmas as possible in the vote period. Jeff
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) (12/04/90)
In article <76015@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > >Well, the last poster tied it up - my summary (see previous post) says 4 >specifically want comp.sys.3b1 and four specifically comp.sys.att.3b1 >(with 6 more who did not care.) > >How about a mini-vote, just on the NAME, with the two choices being > >comp.sys.3b1 > > and > >comp.sys.att.3b1 > ok, I mini-vote for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1 I would have no problem with the "s4" designation mentioned earlier, ie: comp.sys.s4 and comp.sources.s4 I mini-vote no for any *.att.* combination, but if that's the consensus, I'll real-vote to support it. -- name & address (this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR dwn@swbatl.sbc.com David Neill office -> 405-291-1990 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo) home -> 405-843-4464 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.133943.327@swbatl.sbc.com>, dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) writes: > I mini-vote no for any *.att.* combination, but if that's the > consensus, I'll real-vote to support it. > Can you do that? If so, I can honestly say that is EXACTLY how I feel. DAS -- David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) (12/06/90)
In article <1465@das13.snide.com> dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) writes: >In article <1990Dec4.133943.327@swbatl.sbc.com>, dwn@swbatl.sbc.com writes: >> I mini-vote no for any *.att.* combination, but if that's the >> consensus, I'll real-vote to support it. >> >Can you do that? If so, I can honestly say that is EXACTLY how I feel. > >DAS >-- >David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA Sure, you can do that... it doesn't carry any weight, or count for anything, but what the hey.. this is usenet... you can do *ANYTHING*. ;-) Seriously, Jeff Templon posted that the ratio was about 3 to 1 in favor of "comp.sys.3b1". I think someone else already made a good case for "comp.sources.3b1" over "comp.sources.att.3b1". As I said, I prefer no *.att.*, but I'll support whatever gets rid of the "unix-pc" nomenclature. I don't claim to know anything about re-organizing the .att. group, and while it doesn't hurt to try to fix the bigger mess, I kinda wish we could fix our little mess first, then address the larger issues. ....standing by with my voter registration card -- name & address (this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR dwn@swbatl.sbc.com David Neill office -> 405-291-1990 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo) home -> 405-843-4464 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/06/90)
In article <76015@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: |Well, the last poster tied it up - my summary (see previous post) says 4 |specifically want comp.sys.3b1 and four specifically comp.sys.att.3b1 |(with 6 more who did not care.) | |How about a mini-vote, just on the NAME, with the two choices being | |comp.sys.3b1 | | and | |comp.sys.att.3b1 | |I don't think any other name has a chance in hell, so I'll ignore them. |The source group name seems unanimous, comp.sources.3b1. You forgot "unix-pc.general" and "unix-pc.sources". I think in your rush you don't recall that there are a lot of us who have a bad feeling about all of this... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Making the world safe for demography" - Western Culture (tm) Yoghurt
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (12/07/90)
In article <58454@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > You forgot "unix-pc.general" and > "unix-pc.sources". So I did. We are trying to come to a consensus on the name of a new group to create in the mainstream heirarchy. unix-pc.general does not fit this category. I didn't forget, just doesn't apply. > I think in your rush you don't recall > that there are a lot of us who have a > bad feeling about all of this... How long have we been discussing this? What makes you think I am in a rush? Here at iuvax, I have seen about four postings a day saying 'come on, dammit, let's vote!' I took the action I did because I saw lots of people clamoring for 'someone' to get the thing moving, and no-one else seemed to be coming forward. I only recall seeing a few (some number between 3 and 5 at best guess) people post articles who were seriously opposed to going mainstream, discounting those that were based on mistaken information (such as 'it's impossible to just get one group, now I'll have to take the whole comp hierarchy just to get the 3b1 stuff!!) I haven't forgotten, Bruce. This movement's PURPOSE is to go mainstream. I don't think anyone expected that there would be 100% agreement that this was a good thing to do. You expect us to just give up because of a minority bad feeling? jeff
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (12/07/90)
templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: >In article <58454@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >> I think in your rush you don't recall >> that there are a lot of us who have a >> bad feeling about all of this... > How long have we been discussing this? What makes you think I am in >a rush? Here at iuvax, I have seen about four postings a day saying 'come >on, dammit, let's vote!' I took the action I did because I saw lots of >people clamoring for 'someone' to get the thing moving, and no-one else >seemed to be coming forward. This discussion was old when I got a 3b1 4 years ago. Remember the guidelines? A call for votes was not issued because there was not a clear consensus. That's the rules, folks. Hey, I made up my mind years ago on this issue, but I do not write the rules. If you want to get a vote passed, you have to play the game. There are more people on the net that will vote no because they got up on the wrong side of the bed than there are people who read this group. And, a CFV has been sent to the news.announce.newgroups moderator. Jan -- The good and the bad thing about drugs | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 drugs is that they wear off. -Elliston | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
reso@sevihc.UUCP (Dennis Reso) (12/17/90)
I don't see what's wrong with:
comp.sys.3b1 = unix-pc.bugs,unix-pc.general,unix-pc.uucp,unix-pc.test
comp.sources.3b1 = unix-pc.sources
Most of the non-sources traffic seems to be in .general, and though
I'm not counting, I'd assume most .uucp traffic (second-most active)
is cross-posted to .general anyway.
________________________________________________________________________
Dennis Reso sevihc!reso@sharkey.cc.umich.edu
Sterling Hieghts, MI USA {sharkey|hela}!sevihc!reso
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn pms415!reso@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com