chuq@apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/20/90)
This is an official call for discussions on reorganizing the
comp.sys.mac hierarchy. After much preliminary discussion about ways to
deal with the overloading of comp.sys.mac, we've decided that we need
to do something more than just create a new group, but instead try to
reorganize the structure in a more radical way that won't require
further tuning in two or three months.
NOTE: The proposal, as written, does not fully conform to current
guidelines for newsgroup creation. This was done after great thought
because it was felt that what needed to be done to c.s.m simply
couldn't be done successfully by staying within the guidelines in a
timely manner. Gene Spafford, Greg Woods and I all feel the variations
are appropriate for the situation, but I also feel that this exceptions
should also have the general approval of the net, so I'm calling for a
survey on whether the proposal is acceptable.
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CALL FOR DISCUSSION AND THE PRELIMINARY
PROPOSAL. If you feel the proposed voting scheme for the reorganization
is appropriate or inappropriate, send mail to 'chuq@apple.com' with
either a 'yes' or a 'no' to the proposal structure. If the majority of
people responding to this survey vote 'yes' then the official call for
votes will have the structure proposed here. If the majority of
responses are negative, the proposal will be structured to match
current guidelines as a series of call for votes, although that is
expected to stretch the implementation time significantly. Either way,
if you have an opinion about the acceptability of the proposal, please
send it to me for inclusion in the survey. The results of the survey
will be binding on the form of the final proposal and call for votes.
This proposal is written as a series of suggested group changes or
creations. They are being sent out as a single proposal, but each group will
be voted on separately. This will allow the user community to choose which
sections of the proposal they want implemented, rather than forcing an all
or nothing situation.
Additionally, I am proposing that, during the Call For Discussion phase we
are now entering, a secondary survey for additional changes be held. If
there is a group or change that you feel should be made to comp.sys.mac that
isn't in this preliminary proposal, you can e-mail that suggestion to me. If
I get 100 requests for a group, I will add it to the voting of the final
proposal. If I get fewer than 100 requests, I'll post it in a list when the
voting is finished as groups proposed for future additions, but they will
not be part of the official vote. (in other words, if there is a group you
want added to the final vote, you should send me e-mail requesting it AND
discuss it in news.groups to convince others to do so as well.).
If the survey on the guidelines variations fails, this proposal will be
restructures as a series of independent votes on one issue of the
proposal at a time. The effective change is that it will take a lot
longer to implement and require everyone to send in multiple votes, one
for each issue, rather than a single piece of e-mail with votes
covering all issues -- a lot more work over a longer time to get the
same thing done.
One final note: I'm specifically ignoring comp.sources.mac and
comp.binaries.mac in these proposals and focusing only on
comp.sys.mac. There have been some discussions of splitting or
reorganizing c.b.m recently, but (1) I think it would be premature to
place any changes to a vote at this time, and (2) I think fixing c.s.m
is complex enough issue to deal with as it is without adding in the
complexities of the other hierarchies. I also believe that changes to
moderated groups should be organized by the moderator, so I leave these
hierarchies to someone else to work with.
Please send your survey comments about the structure of this proposal
(positive or negative) and requests for additional groups in this
proposal to me at "chuq@apple.com". Because of the complexity of this
proposal and some personal scheduling requirements I'm running a
somewhat extended discussion period: discussion of this proposal and
vote counting for the surveys will run until March 17, 1990 with the
call for votes being issued the week of March 19. Please route all
discussion to news.groups and keep it out of c.s.m -- it's noisy enough
as it is (which is the whole point of the proposal).
Now, to the reorganization proposals themselves. Remember, in the call for
votes each proposal will be voted upon separately, and depending on the
results of the survey there might be additional groups to be voted upon:
Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. This will be in
multiple stages: the creation of comp.sys.mac.misc, followed a few
weeks later by the rmgroup of comp.sys.mac and the addition of a usenet
alias to the new group to forward misdirected messages. This will bring
c.s.m into the same standardized naming as other hierarchies, and it
should also discourage some of the cross-posting between c.s.m and
sub-groups that happens when people think they should put it in the
parent group just in case.
Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os. This will be for discussion of
Macintosh system software -- the system, finder, multifinder, CDEVs, INITs
and other Apple and third party Operating System software and its
extensions.
Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.appl. This will be for discussion of
Macintosh applications. The naming of this group has created a fair amount
of discussion, ranging between app and applications. I've chosen appl for a
couple of reasons: (1) for people with a knowledge of Macintosh this term
won't be ambiguous, since it is the signature byte of applications (it
should also be obvious enough in context to not be ambiguous to complete
novices); and (2) I see this as the root of a sub-hierarchy, and the thought
of typing comp.sys.mac.applications.wordprocessing is painful and I think it
would be unacceptable to many users -- the shorter name will encourage
future expansions rather than discourage them.
Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.appl.hypercard.
To standardize naming in the new scheme. Technically, since Apple computer
considers Hypercard system software it should be c.s.m.os.hypercard, but I
don't believe most users agree with that thinking.
Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. A place for the "I'm missing
part five of..." or "I need a program that does..." or "Where can I get a
good price on..." messages. There was some discussion of creating a sister
group c.s.m.forsale, but for sale messages really should be encouraged to go
into a regional group and not a net-wide group.
Welcome to comp.sys.mac document: In parallel with this proposal, Geoff
Allen <pmafire!geoff@uunet.UU.NET> is writing an "introduction to the
comp.sys.mac hierarchy document. This document will be posted on a regular
basis (and updated when needed) and will document the different groups in
the hierarchy and what type of messages should be posted where. It or a
sister posting will also include answers to common questions. This posting
should also help reduce cross-posting, confusion and the constant
re-introduction of certain topics.
Rejected proposals: This is a short list of proposals considered that I've
rejected and why:
o c.s.m.fonts: discussion should be in comp.fonts
o c.s.m.desktop: desktop publishing discussion should be in comp.text.desktop
o c.s.m.d (or c.s.m.futures): I wasn't convinced it was a viable long-term
discussion. With the proper splitting of the other topics, it should
fit appropriately in c.s.m.misc. talk.politics.apple was also
considered.
o c.s.m.viruses: discussion should be in comp.virus
o c.s.m.reviews: there isn't enough traffic to justify, and it would
have to be moderated to prevent lots of noise.
o c.s.m.{db,comm,spreadsheet,wordprocessing,et al}: these should be
considered as sub-groups of the c.s.m.appl hierarchy and we should
wait and see how traffic in that area works out before considering
splitting it further.
That's it. Five proposals, two renamed groups and three creations (two of
which should be considered roots for sub-hierarchies that can be created as
needed). Again, please respond to the survey about the format of this
proposal, and if you have groups you feel ought to be added to the
proposal. All discussion should take place in news.groups, not in the c.s.m
group.
thanks to: Cory Kempf, D. K. Smith, Dan Veditz, Dave Smith, Gail
Zacharias, Geoff Allen, John Macdonald, John R. Delaney, Larry E.
Kollar, Mark M Mehl, Piper Keairnes, Randy Futor, capmkt!bandy,
fleming@cup.portal.com, sklein@cdp.UUCP, among others, for their feedback,
suggestions and advice on building this proposal.
chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking]
Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for
the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.chuq@apple.com (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/20/90)
[This is a repost of an earlier article do to a problem on apple.com.
-eliot]
This is an official call for discussions on reorganizing the
comp.sys.mac hierarchy. After much preliminary discussion about ways to
deal with the overloading of comp.sys.mac, we've decided that we need
to do something more than just create a new group, but instead try to
reorganize the structure in a more radical way that won't require
further tuning in two or three months.
NOTE: The proposal, as written, does not fully conform to current
guidelines for newsgroup creation. This was done after great thought
because it was felt that what needed to be done to c.s.m simply
couldn't be done successfully by staying within the guidelines in a
timely manner. Gene Spafford, Greg Woods and I all feel the variations
are appropriate for the situation, but I also feel that this exceptions
should also have the general approval of the net, so I'm calling for a
survey on whether the proposal is acceptable.
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CALL FOR DISCUSSION AND THE PRELIMINARY
PROPOSAL. If you feel the proposed voting scheme for the reorganization
is appropriate or inappropriate, send mail to 'chuq@apple.com' with
either a 'yes' or a 'no' to the proposal structure. If the majority of
people responding to this survey vote 'yes' then the official call for
votes will have the structure proposed here. If the majority of
responses are negative, the proposal will be structured to match
current guidelines as a series of call for votes, although that is
expected to stretch the implementation time significantly. Either way,
if you have an opinion about the acceptability of the proposal, please
send it to me for inclusion in the survey. The results of the survey
will be binding on the form of the final proposal and call for votes.
This proposal is written as a series of suggested group changes or
creations. They are being sent out as a single proposal, but each group will
be voted on separately. This will allow the user community to choose which
sections of the proposal they want implemented, rather than forcing an all
or nothing situation.
Additionally, I am proposing that, during the Call For Discussion phase we
are now entering, a secondary survey for additional changes be held. If
there is a group or change that you feel should be made to comp.sys.mac that
isn't in this preliminary proposal, you can e-mail that suggestion to me. If
I get 100 requests for a group, I will add it to the voting of the final
proposal. If I get fewer than 100 requests, I'll post it in a list when the
voting is finished as groups proposed for future additions, but they will
not be part of the official vote. (in other words, if there is a group you
want added to the final vote, you should send me e-mail requesting it AND
discuss it in news.groups to convince others to do so as well.).
If the survey on the guidelines variations fails, this proposal will be
restructures as a series of independent votes on one issue of the
proposal at a time. The effective change is that it will take a lot
longer to implement and require everyone to send in multiple votes, one
for each issue, rather than a single piece of e-mail with votes
covering all issues -- a lot more work over a longer time to get the
same thing done.
One final note: I'm specifically ignoring comp.sources.mac and
comp.binaries.mac in these proposals and focusing only on
comp.sys.mac. There have been some discussions of splitting or
reorganizating c.b.m recently, but (1) I think it would be premature to
place any changes to a vote at this time, and (2) I think fixing c.s.m
is complex enough issue to deal with as it is without adding in the
complexities of the other hierarchies. I also believe that changes to
moderated groups should be organized by the moderator, so I leave these
hierarchies to someone else to work with.
Please send your survey comments about the structure of this proposal
(positive or negative) and requests for additional groups in this
proposal to me at "chuq@apple.com". Because of the complexity of this
proposal and some personal scheduling requirements I'm running a
somewhat extended discussion period: discussion of this proposal and
vote counting for the surveys will run until March 17, 1990 with the
call for votes being issued the week of March 19. Please route all
discussion to news.groups and keep it out of c.s.m -- it's noisy enough
as it is (which is the whole point of the proposal).
Now, to the reorganization proposals themselves. Remember, in the call for
votes each proposal will be voted upon separately, and depending on the
results of the survey there might be additional groups to be voted upon:
Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. This will be in
multiple stages: the creation of comp.sys.mac.misc, followed a few
weeks later by the rmgroup of comp.sys.mac and the addition of a usenet
alias to the new group to forward misdirected messages. This will bring
c.s.m into the same standardized naming as other hierarchies, and it
should also discourage some of the cross-posting between c.s.m and
sub-groups that happens when people think they should put it in the
parent group just in case.
Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os. This will be for discussion of
Macintosh system software -- the system, finder, multifinder, CDEVs, INITs
and other Apple and third party Operating System software and its
extensions.
Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.appl. This will be for discussion of
Macintosh applications. The naming of this group has created a fair amount
of discussion, ranging between app and applications. I've chosen appl for a
couple of reasons: (1) for people with a knowledge of Macintosh this term
won't be ambiguous, since it is the signature byte of applications (it
should also be obvious enough in context to not be ambiguous to complete
novices); and (2) I see this as the root of a sub-hierarchy, and the thought
of typing comp.sys.mac.applications.wordprocessing is painful and I think it
would be unacceptable to many users -- the shorter name will encourage
future expansions rather than discourage them.
Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.appl.hypercard.
To standardize naming in the new scheme. Technically, since Apple computer
considers Hypercard system software it should be c.s.m.os.hypercard, but I
don't believe most users agree with that thinking.
Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. A place for the "I'm missing
part five of..." or "I need a program that does..." or "Where can I get a
good price on..." messages. There was some discussion of creating a sister
group c.s.m.forsale, but for sale messages really should be encouraged to go
into a regional group and not a net-wide group.
Welcome to comp.sys.mac document: In parallel with this proposal, Geoff
Allen <pmafire!geoff@uunet.UU.NET> is writing an "introduction to the
comp.sys.mac hierarchy document. This document will be posted on a regular
basis (and updated when needed) and will document the different groups in
the hierarchy and what type of messages should be posted where. It or a
sister posting will also include answers to common questions. This posting
should also help reduce cross-posting, confusion and the constant
re-introduction of certain topics.
Rejected proposals: This is a short list of proposals considered that I've
rejected and why:
o c.s.m.fonts: discussion should be in comp.fonts
o c.s.m.desktop: desktop publishing discussion should be in comp.text.desktop
o c.s.m.d (or c.s.m.futures): I wasn't convinced it was a viable long-term
discussion. With the proper splitting of the other topics, it should
fit appropriately in c.s.m.misc. talk.politics.apple was also
considered.
o c.s.m.viruses: discussion should be in comp.virus
o c.s.m.reviews: there isn't enough traffic to justify, and it would
have to be moderated to prevent lots of noise.
o c.s.m.{db,comm,spreadsheet,wordprocessing,et al}: these should be
considered as sub-groups of the c.s.m.appl hierarchy and we should
wait and see how traffic in that area works out before considering
splitting it further.
That's it. Five proposals, two renamed groups and three creations (two of
which should be considered roots for sub-hierarchies that can be created as
needed). Again, please respond to the survey about the format of this
proposal, and if you have groups you feel ought to be added to the
proposal. All discussion should take place in news.groups, not in the c.s.m
group.
thanks to: Cory Kempf, D. K. Smith, Dan Veditz, Dave Smith, Gail
Zacharias, Geoff Allen, John Macdonald, John R. Delaney, Larry E.
Kollar, Mark M Mehl, Piper Keairnes, Randy Futor, capmkt!bandy,
fleming@cup.portal.com, sklein@cdp.UUCP, among others, for their feedback,
suggestions and advice on building this proposal.
chuq
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking]
Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for
the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.