templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (12/04/90)
OK, I am willing to try and write a charter for the new newsgroup and post it to news.groups, if someone else will volunteer to take votes. I will shortly list points below that I intend to put in. Unless there are serious disagreements, I will use these. 1) name: comp.sys.att.3b1, comp.sources.att.3b1 2) purpose: discussion of 7300/3b1/UNIXPC and related CT machines (S/50, etc.) this is to replace unix-pc.general which will be removed (or suitably aliased - i don't know much about aliasing so if some kind soul wants to fill me in or provide a couple of sentences here, I'd be happy) after a six-month transition period. the newsgroup is being moved into the comp hierarchy to solve problems with spotty distribution (almost nonexistent for our european friends) in the unix-pc hierarchy, and also to alleviate the confusion with the current name. 3) groups to be created: comp.sys.att.3b1 (unmoderated) comp.sources.att.3b1 (moderated) The names are chosen under the comp.sys.att hierarchy since there have been people interested in reorganizing the comp.sys.att group using subgroups like this. we would like to make our group compatible with this possible reorg., thus the placement; however we are not proposing to do this reorg ourselves. comp.sys.att.3b1 is for general discussions and replaces the groups unix-pc.general and unix-pc.uucp (which has little traffic.) comp.sources.att.3b1 is for posting of sources and official patches to these sources. it is moderated so that it will be in a form suitable for archiving at those sites which do this. OK, let's try and get this going. Please contact me if you feel I left anything out. 'amen, brother' sort of messages are also welcome, since usually the people who don't like things are vocal; positive messages will help me judge whether I've really understood the consensus here. obviously we're not going to please everybody. jeff
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (12/04/90)
In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > >OK, I am willing to try and write a charter for the new newsgroup and post >it to news.groups, if someone else will volunteer to take votes... > >1) name: comp.sys.att.3b1, comp.sources.att.3b1 I'm willing to run the vote, but I'd prefer to run a vote for the rest of the new groups at the same time. I would be willing to write the charters for all the groups. If some well-connected person will volunteer to moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group I will run a vote for that, also. In order to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the new groups at the same time: comp.sys.att.3b1 3b1's, UNIX-PC's, 7300's, and related CT machines comp.sys.att.3b2 3b2's and related machines (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 comp.sys.att.misc Miscellaneous discussions about AT&T machines comp.sources.att.3b1 Sources for 3b1's (moderated) A simple "yes" vote would be interpreted as a "yes" for all five groups. A simple "no" vote would be interpreted as a "no" vote for all five groups. Mixed votes would also be allowed, I'll process them by hand. Each group would have pass the guideline criteria (YES - NO > 100, YES:NO > 2:1) in order to be created. Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (12/04/90)
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: >In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: >> >>OK, I am willing to try and write a charter for the new newsgroup and post >>it to news.groups, if someone else will volunteer to take votes... >> >I'm willing to run the vote, but I'd prefer to run a vote for the rest of >the new groups at the same time. I would be willing to write the charters >for all the groups. If some well-connected person will volunteer to moderate >the comp.sources.att.3b1 group I will run a vote for that, also. In order >to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the >new groups at the same time: no, no, and no. > comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the 386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes. >Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. >Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel >my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that >we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to >moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. Well, yes Mark, I do object. I posted the call for discussion, remember? No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown. I have been considering your proposals with great care. However, it is my opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att. Time, I think, is on our side. Several people have said that they want to get a vote in before the holidays. Well, the holidays are already here. Further, I think that a vote over the holidays would favor either proposal because it is my belief that *many* people who are *really* interested in this (and on our sides) are leaf sites with home systems who would not miss out on a vote over the holidays. But, I could be wrong. Seems to be a lot of grumbling about "too much noise". Well, people, this is how the process is supposed to work, to give everyone a chance to voice an opinion. That takes time. I should take time because if it aint done right, you will have to live with it for a long time. Anyone remember comp.unix.wizards? I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. Jan -- Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: >markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > >>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. >>Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel >>my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that >>we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to >>moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. > >Well, yes Mark, I do object. I posted the call for discussion, remember? > >No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown. > I'm truly sorry about this. A quick check of the system here shows that our mailer is broken. The automatic forwarding from our gateway machine "GVL.Unisys.COM" won't work, but mail directly to my workstation cluster "gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM" will work OK. Serves me right for trying to do this from work, rather than from my trusty 3b1 at home! I erroneously assumed that the lack of correspondence from you indicated that you were willing to go along with my proposal. >I have been considering your proposals with great care. However, it is my >opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have >really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att. I agree that the reorganization of comp.sys.att probably needs more discussion. I was hoping to take care of both proposals with a single vote. I think there is a fair amount of support for the reorganization from other AT&T users. >> comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 > >I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the >386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes. > I got this idea from the maintainer of the pc63xx mailing list, who listed these machines as the boxes which are discussed on the list. I agree that the discussions about 386 unix belong in comp.unix.sv386, but don't some people run DOS on 6386 boxes? >I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if >everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. > Please do. I would only ask that you call the group comp.sys.att.3b1 rather than comp.sys.3b1. The has been some opposition to the new group proposal from people who don't understand why it shouldn't be under comp.sys.att. While there are some similar Convergent and Motorola boxes out there, the vast majority say AT&T on them. This name would also be compatible with a future reorganization of comp.sys.att, which I will propose later, probably after the holidays (and after I get my mailer fixed!). Once again, sorry about this mixup. I'm looking forward to voting for a new 3b1 group in the near future. Mark Internet: markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw (yes, these addresses DO work)
das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec3.205742.18931@news.gvl.unisys.com>, markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for > Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. > Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel > my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that > we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to > moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. > Great, let's do it !!!!! DAS -- David Snyder @ UE&C - Catalytic in Philadelphia, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das INTERNET: das@trac2000.ueci.com
yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (12/05/90)
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: > >I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if >everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. Jan: If you are going to post a call for votes, indicate what you would do about the sources group ahead of time. Many people are assuming the call for votes will include a sources group, but your call for discussion did not provide for one. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu Christmas -- the day when we celebrate the birth of a 2000 year old superstition by watching pine trees slowly die in our living rooms.
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: >markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > >>In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: [ recent proposal to expand the 3b1 proposal to be a general reorganization of comp.sys.att ] >>to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the >>new groups at the same time: > >no, no, and no. Hold it Jan. That sounds like "I don't care that my idea stimulated some others that might be beneficial to the entire newsgroup, let's stick with mine". More below, but I don't think that you should summarily dismiss a co-proposal that pursues a greater good. I don't think there is anything "wrong" with comp.sys.att right now, I've got an `n' button, I can skip over 3b1/7300 things and read 3b2/63xx things. There's nothing to "fix", but there are some things to improve. I think that's where Mark is coming from. I'm pretty sure that he couldn't care less about 63xx or 3b2, but there were some murmurings after you made your proposal (apologies if it was Jeffrey Templon's or someone elses proposal), I think that's what Mark's talking about. >> comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 > >I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the >386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes. Mark didn't bring that up, _I_ did. I mentioned that if there was interest, I would be glad to gateway the 63xx mailing list to a sys.att subgroup for 63xx machines. Thus far the reaction from the mailing list folks has ranged from passive to mild interest. I thought (and it was the reason I made the suggestion) that 63xx owners who now throw an occaisional m'aidez into comp.sys.att might benefit from the collective wisdom of the people who are already on the mailing list. Don't blame Mark for my suggestion and don't suggest that he's headed for peril "if you try to put the 386 boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes". We're talking about _AT&T_ boxes, their idiosyncracies and advantages. I'd be the first to scream if comp.sys.ibm.pc metastasized over to comp.sys.att. This is a matter of compartmentalizing comp.sys.att to better handle discussions about _AT&T_ equipment, not DOS, not 386en; it's still comp.sys.att. I'm as willing to withdraw my offer to gateway the AT&T PC63xx mailing list as I was to make it. I thought that if there was interest in having a place for it (to save cycles on your `n' button :-), it would be for the overall betterment of AT&T system owners. If anyone thought I was being pushy and trying to horn in on a 3b1 proposal, please disabuse yourselves of that notion. I sort of chimed in because I thought it would be nice to have a place for 63xx folk, much as the original suggestion for 3b1/7300 folk. If it has no appeal, no one need ask me to withdraw, I'll bolt! >>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. [ ... ] > >Well, yes Mark, I do object. I posted the call for discussion, remember? > >No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown. Hmmm. I don't seem to be having any trouble reaching him, maybe you should forward through Pipe Creek, TX. Sure, you posted the call for discussion, are you now saying that the discussion that you called for isn't what you wanted? I'm confused! We're going to discuss, but if the discussion isn't something you like, we're discussing something wrong? This is starting to sound like a flame and I must add here that it most certainly isn't. I have no objection whatsoever to splitting out 3b1/7300 material into some other group. I don't care whether it resides in the comp.sys.att namespace, some snobbish part of me thinks it should, but I don't care. I'm a 3b2 and a 63xx person. I'd like to have a playpen too. Other 3b2 people suggested a 3b2 playpen, I suggested a 63xx playpen. Every stitch of this was stimulated by your call for discussion for a 3b1/7300 playpen. I think it's time for each of us with a system with a death star on it to have a place to hang out. >I have been considering your proposals with great care. However, it is my >opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have >really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att. Huh? Mark didn't make this all up. Admittedly, a lot happened via email rather than being posted. If Mark is guilty of summarizing email into a posted proposal, so be it. I helped him do that. I point this out because I posted one article, but flew quite a bit of mail back and forth. I can certainly see how you could thin he made this all up in a vacuum if you haven't had reliable connectivity for mail. >Seems to be a lot of grumbling about "too much noise". Well, people, this >is how the process is supposed to work, to give everyone a chance to voice >an opinion. That takes time. I should take time because if it aint done >right, you will have to live with it for a long time. Anyone remember >comp.unix.wizards? Thanks for giving me something to hide behind :-) Seriously, I know that Mark isn't trying to rain on your parade, he said it to me in terms not much differently than those. He wants to make an overall improvement in the comp.sys.att group, maybe you just want to compartmentalize 3b1/7300 and that's quite all right, it would save me some cycles on the `n' button :-) You're closer kin to Mark that either of you is to me. I figure that there are three architectures here, M68xxx, 321xx and 63xx, but they're all AT&T (regardless of how we might feel about AT&T). If we're going to make a separate group for M68xxx, why not do the others too? If that's too far beyond what you had in mind when you called for discussion, then restrict the discussion to M68xxx, the rest of us won't mind, we're used to it :-) >I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if >everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. I don't think that anyone wants to preempt or usurp you, but I did get a feeling that there was good to be done in addition to what you proposed. >Jan >-- >Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 >Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan -- Bill Kennedy usenet {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.164232.22013@news.gvl.unisys.com> markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: ... >Please do. I would only ask that you call the group comp.sys.att.3b1 >rather than comp.sys.3b1. The has been some opposition to the new group >proposal from people who don't understand why it shouldn't be under >comp.sys.att. While there are some similar Convergent and Motorola >boxes out there, the vast majority say AT&T on them. This name would >also be compatible with a future reorganization of comp.sys.att, which >I will propose later, probably after the holidays (and after I get my >mailer fixed!). > I'm still unclear on the advantage of placing the 3b1 group under the .att. group. If the group ends up comp.sys.3b1 then there's no problem with compatibility with the future re-organization of comp.sys.att, right? I really do believe the Convergent and Motorola owners will find the group, regardless of it's location, but how do we settle this group-name thing before a call for votes? -- 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
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (12/07/90)
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) writes: >I'm still unclear on the advantage of placing the 3b1 group under >the .att. group. If the group ends up comp.sys.3b1 then there's >no problem with compatibility with the future re-organization of >comp.sys.att, right? I really do believe the Convergent and Motorola >owners will find the group, regardless of it's location, but how do >we settle this group-name thing before a call for votes? There are 2 ways to settle it. 1. declare that there is a majority in favor of comp.sys.3b1 and call a vote for it. There is some evidence that this position is justifiable. 2. do a "multi-way" vote that allows for voting for the name as well as the group itself. I have sent a call for votes to Eliot. It is #2, by the way. I think it is the only fair way to do it. 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