mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (10/18/87)
Bob page posted the following to news.group, without crossposting.
Since he didn't notify the bulk of the people interested, there hasn't
been much discussion there. I'm correcting that flaw - but not to
generate discussion!
In article <1843@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes:
<I think the Amiga group needs to be split up too, for the same reason
<that Barry suggests, and the same reason that comp.unix (might) get
<split. There are about 50 messages a day to comp.sys.amiga.
<
<However, I suggest the group be split along different lines -
<audio, video, hardware, kernel and misc should do it for now .. no
<sense having a zillion subgroups.
<
<..Bob
<--
<Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
Rather than following the standard procedure (debate in news.group), I
prpose the following: Send me mail. If you wish comp.sys.amiga split,
give a proposed split and reasons. If you don't want it split, say so.
I'll post the results of this "straw poll" to comp.sys.amiga.
If things seem to be for a split, we can discuss it on comp.sys.amiga,
then go to news.group with a "we'd like it split this way," and not
burden the readers of that group with the discussion of it. On the
other hand, if people seem to be opposed to a split, it'll stop there.
<mike
--
Come all you rolling minstrels, Mike Meyer
And together we will try, mwm@berkeley.edu
To rouse the spirit of the air, ucbvax!mwm
And move the rolling sky. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETpage@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) (10/19/87)
[the original article in news.groups was about splitting the Mac group] mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) wrote: >Bob page posted the following to news.group, without crossposting. Sorry about that; I hadn't intended to "sneak attack" the Amiga group, and it's not for my own reasons anyway, since I'd read any/all the subgroups that were created. It seemed a better idea to have the grand poobahs in news.groups say "sounds good" or "sounds ungood" before anyone in comp.sys.amiga had to deal with it. Lord knows we talk about enough here without also talking about how we talk about things? (so what I am doing? Triple-indirect recursion? :-)) >Since he didn't notify the bulk of the people interested, there hasn't >been much discussion there. I'm correcting that flaw - but not to >generate discussion! Well, if the news.groupies don't care (I guess they don't) then I suppose it's time for the Amigans to take action. >I prpose [sic] the following: Send me mail. A good idea (that's "send Mike mail" not "send Bob mail"). Would you like to see comp.sys.amiga split into subgroups? What topics? ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/19/87)
The only lines I can think of for splitting up comp.sys.amiga that make much sense would be comp.sys.amiga.misc and comp.sys.amiga.gurus (smiley). Most major programs use so many of the subsystems of the machine (quite a compliment to the basic design of the thing, when you think about it) that questions and comments will just lead to massive crossposting. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (10/20/87)
In article <1870@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@swan.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >Well, if the news.groupies don't care (I guess they don't) then I >suppose it's time for the Amigans to take action. > >>I prpose [sic] the following: Send me mail. > >A good idea (that's "send Mike mail" not "send Bob mail"). Would you >like to see comp.sys.amiga split into subgroups? What topics? I guess I din't understand the rationale behind this. Are we in danger of being moderated ? Digestified ? Shut off ? Sure the volume is high, but with liberal application of the 'n' key and occasionally the 'k' I find it doesn't take along time to read this stuff. Would it be a good idea to "wait and see" what happens to the Mac groups and learn from their mistakes/sucesses ? >Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} -- Richard J. Sexton INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard "It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (Joanne Dow) (10/20/87)
In article <1870@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@swan.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >[the original article in news.groups was about splitting the Mac group] > I suspect we should not do anything hasty. Unless such a split performs a very important function it should be avoided. Speaking from my modest couple years experience in moderating on bix there would at best be perhaps 4 or 5 topics worth of split that would be fruitful and one additional that would be nice. Something along the lines of "general", "softw.des", "products", and "hardware" might work. If things DO get split another topic that would not be used enough unless someone got ruthless "moderating" this melange would be "flames". Now the main question becomes "Are there compelling reasons for introducing this major transient in the network?" Perhaps it would save space? I doubt there would be many nodes with such a homogeneous collection of folks that they wouldn't end up carrying all thirty splinter topics if there were that many. Perhaps it would save reading time? I doubt it. I find there is just enough cross interest on BIX that resigning a topic (even flames!) can result in missing some important gems as discussions wander. Hm, I babbled too much - bye! -- <@_@> BIX:jdow INTERNET:jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP:{akgua, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!jdow Remember - A bird in the hand often leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it was better you left it in the bush with the other one.