scott@max.u.washington.edu (09/08/89)
How come there isn't a newsgroup called "comp.binaries.cbm"??? I know that this question has been asked before, but I didn't see any reasonable answer to the question? If insufficent activity in the "comp.binaries.cbm" is the answer, then well....I just checked the binaries for IBM, Apple2, and others, and I am sure that a CBM binaries would be far more active then all of them except for Mac. IBM and Amiga binaries had zero messages and others close to it. With all do respect, I think in all fairness, CBM do deserve its own binaries newsgroup. I believe such newsgroup will prove invaluable to CBM users. At least give it a test run... :) Sincerely, Scott K. Stephen
bowen@mira.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Devon Bowen) (09/09/89)
In article <6597@max.u.washington.edu>, scott@max.u.washington.edu writes: > How come there isn't a newsgroup called "comp.binaries.cbm"??? > > I know that this question has been asked before, but I didn't see > any reasonable answer to the question? Simply because it didn't have enough support to be voted in. The way the system is set up there doesn't have to be a reason to not have it, but rather there has to be enough support to have it. Devon
scott@max.u.washington.edu (09/09/89)
In article <9947@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, bowen@mira.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Devon Bowen) writes: > In article <6597@max.u.washington.edu>, scott@max.u.washington.edu writes: >> How come there isn't a newsgroup called "comp.binaries.cbm"??? >> >> I know that this question has been asked before, but I didn't see >> any reasonable answer to the question? > > Simply because it didn't have enough support to be voted in. The way the > system is set up there doesn't have to be a reason to not have it, but > rather there has to be enough support to have it. > > Devon From where those that support must come from? Do we have any input in that support? Scott.
bowen@mira.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Devon Bowen) (09/10/89)
Distribution: world In article <6643@max.u.washington.edu>, scott@max.u.washington.edu writes: > From where those that support must come from? Do we have any input in > that support? To get an "official" backbone group created you must first post to news.groups explaining that you would like a new group, why the new group is needed, what the group will be used for and what you'd like to call it. You then open the issue for discussion. After about a month of letting all the readers there scream at you about how the name is bad and how the group isn't needed, you post a formal proposal which is a modification of your original post with any new ideas that have been suggested during the month of discussion. Then you have a call for votes. At this time you start collecting votes (by mail) either for or against the group. If, after 1 month, you have 100 more yes votes than no votes, the group becomes official and is created by a backbone site. Of course, you have to post who voted yes and no so it may be verified. This was tried about a year back. I think it was Ray that tried it. But it didn't get the support it needed. Anybody can propose a group. You can try again if you'd like by just following the above procedure. But be prepared to get flamed heavily on news.groups... Devon