edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec29.142103.3886@blilly.UUCP> bruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) writes: >I realize that the vote for news.software.c failed a few months ago, but >apparently some people are not aware of this. There have been a few >postings in tha last week or so which imply this. > >One of the main arguments against news.software.c was the fear that many >neophytes would think it to be a place for postings regarding the ``C'' >language. > >So maybe we should consider news.software.cnews, which should overcome >that objection. a/ news.software.cnews is sufficiently simple and explicit to be considered a Good Thing (TM). b/ much as I don't like the concept of newsgroup proliferation it seems like it's time for this one. I suspect that after the "waiting period" elapses, the proposal will get more support than last time. Personally I have no problem with a discussion period now and a vote when the time is appropriate, although the net.gods might deem it appropriate to intervene. Does anyone know how far off "6 months" is? -- Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec31.082711.6700@xenitec.on.ca> edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: | I suspect that after the "waiting period" elapses, the proposal | will get more support than last time. Personally I have no | problem with a discussion period now and a vote when the time | is appropriate, although the net.gods might deem it appropriate | to intervene. Does anyone know how far off "6 months" is? Since this is a diferent name, and that was a good part of the objection, I think you can call it a new group and discuss now. That's certainly within the spirit of the guidelines (my opinion), you're not bringing the same thing up again, there's a major change. I would really like to see this happen so the people running B news, possibly a majority of the net, could have their group back. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (01/01/91)
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >The community seems to have spoken again and again on this issue. If >you are going to do this again, please make certain that at the very >least you have the support of Henry and Geoff. For better or worse, >their opinion seemed to have carried a lot of weight. Perhaps what we >should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. I second the notion of news.software.transport/readers. That would reduce the number of groups and eliminate the need for a new group everytime a new package comes along. [Follow-Up's directed to news.groups] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (01/07/91)
In article <tim.662896773@holly> tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes: >In <Dec.31.14.53.28.1990.18673@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > >>Perhaps what we >>should have (after figuring out how to rename groups without pissing >>off the world) is news.software.transport and news.software.readers. >>-- >>Eliot Lear > >That would seem to be the most sensible way of dividing it. Anybody else >think so ? >Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address >Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk It might be sensible, but treads on a restructuring of the news.software sub-hierarchy. Somehow I don't think we're really ready for that and wonder how many would really be interested in a complete restructuring vrs a simple split. As I understood it, the intention of the original posting was to simply provide a discrete discussion area for c-news users vrs bnews users. While some have stated that bnews problems are of interest to c-news sites, I don't really believe that. Discussions of what's broken in bnews just don't concern me. I'm similarily of the opinion that bnews admins aren't too interested in the c-news patches and discussions that I _do_ want to see without having to wade through (what to me is) irrelevent traffic. IMHO there is now sufficient volume on both topics to support a split. Please note that I'm redirecting this discussion to news.groups -- Ed. A. Hew <edhew@xenitec.on.ca>, XeniTec Consulting Services or if you're really stuck: ..!{watmath|lsuc}!xenitec!eah