mrb@sei.cmu.edu (Mario Barbacci) (03/27/88)
A few weeks ago I posted a message proposing the creation of a moderated group to carry IEEE Computer Society news. My original proposal suggested comp.org.ieee-cs as the name of the new group but after hearing from several voters, I would like to amend it to comp.org.ieee.cs. This makes sense since there are several societies in the IEEE. A couple of people suggested the creation of comp.org.misc as an interim step and then split it as the need arose. The problem I have with this is that such a group is harder to moderate -- there might be too much work for a single moderator and things could be confusing to the readers. I believe the IEEE (and the ACM for that matter) are big enough and important enough to the profession that they should not be in a mixed bag. This brings me to my next point. The YES votes are in a majority (see tally, below) but there are not enough votes to create the group. I find it distressing that the creation of a group to carry news of a computing professional society is not receiving the attention it deserves. A few months ago there was a proposal to create comp.org.acm and the initiative died for lack of votes. This is a sad precedent. There is still time to vote and if you are interested in the welfare of the profession you should vote for this initiative. If you are interested in supporting this new group, please send mail to: mrb@sei.cmu.edu (internet) mrb%sei.cmu.edu@cmuccvma (bitnet) uunet!sei.cmu.edu!mrb (uunet) Thanks Mario Barbacci Vice-chair, Technical Activities Board The Computer Society of the IEEE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ dcoster@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Peter Coster) yes hoptoad!pozar@uunet.UU.NET (Tim Pozar) yes ibrahim@p.cs.uiuc.edu (R. Mustafa Samik Ibrahim) yes Chuck Weinstock <weinstoc@SEI.CMU.EDU> yes rfm@Sun.COM (Richard McAllister) yes tom@uts.amdahl.com (Tom Goodwin) yes alpert@harvard.harvard.edu (Rich Alpert) yes Bjorn Lisper <lisper@YALE.ARPA> yes bsu-cs!dhesi@uunet.UU.NET (Rahul Dhesi) yes Jeff Wallace <jeffw%scheme.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu> yes rja <steinmetz!rja@edison.ge.com> yes Ed Tecot <tecot@Apple.Com> yes david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) yes Dominic Dunlop <mcvax!sphinx.co.uk!domo@uunet.UU.NET> yes Anne Louise Gockel <ag4@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu> yes David S. Wise <dswise@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> yes rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) yes kraut@emx.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) yes abhg!misko@lll-lcc.llnl.gov yes 19 YES votes jeff@gatech.edu (Jeff Lee) no david@Sun.COM (David DiGiacomo) no yeongw@nisc.nyser.net (Wengyik Yeong) no justin@inmet.inmet.com (Mark Waks) no webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) no max%eros.Berkeley.EDU@cad.Berkeley.EDU (Max Hauser) no moss!codas!ki4pv!tanner@rutgers.edu no tower@buita.BU.EDU no cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ken Bartlett) no 9 NO votes -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario R. Barbacci, (ArpaNet:barbacci@sei.cmu.edu) Software Engineering Institute, CMU, Pittsburgh PA 15213, (412) 268-7704
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Peter J. Holsberg) (03/28/88)
Here's a YES vote.
--
Peter Holsberg UUCP: {rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division CompuServe: 70240,334
Mercer College GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800max@arches.uucp (Max Hauser) (03/28/88)
In article <4749@aw.sei.cmu.edu> mrb@sei.cmu.edu (Mario Barbacci) writes: >A few weeks ago I posted a message proposing the creation of a moderated >group to carry IEEE Computer Society news. ... >This brings me to my next point. The YES votes are in a majority (see tally, >below) but there are not enough votes to create the group. I find it >distressing that the creation of a group to carry news of a computing >professional society is not receiving the attention it deserves. ... >There is still time to vote and if you are interested in the welfare of the >profession you should vote for this initiative. ... I would not have responded but for these statements. Again with respect for the sincerity and good intentions of the proponent, the whole reason we solicit votes and discussion on a proposal is to find OUT how much "attention it deserves," rather than leaving this up to the proponents alone to decide, which would certainly give us a lot of groups that seemed like great ideas but didn't receive much ultimate following. (In fact we get plenty of those now). Once again, a mailing list is a flexible, positive alternative, requiring no one's approval, and readily parlayed into a newsgroup if the volume proves out. From the vote totals, the size of such a mailing list would seem easily manageable. I should not have to point out that one can be interested in the welfare of the profession and still legitimately disagree with the proposal. Indeed, to paraphrase the final pph above, there is still time to vote and if you are interested in the welfare of the net you should vote against this initiative. Note that I've set followup to news.groups, per protocol. Max Hauser / max@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max