dma@pcssc.com (Dave Armbrust) (12/14/90)
In article <27770@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes: >dma@pcssc.com (Dave Armbrust) writes: >>BTW, I still consider myself new to news.groups even after six >>months of reading this group! > >>Once the guidelines are exstablished for removal of groups I >>will issue a call to remove comp.unix.xenix.misc unless I hear >>from at least 25 people that want this group. > >Dave Armbrust indeed hasn't caught the drift of news.groups too well. >Nobody is going to establish guidelines (other than perhaps simple >mechanical ones) for removing newsgroups; they will just argue about it. (Or complex, involved, computerized ones:-)) I hope you are wrong. If we can agree (that may be the catch) I hope we do get the mechanic into the guidelines. >His posting illustrates one good reason why -- to avoid revenge politics, >which would be orders of magnitude worse than newsgroup creation politics. I am not interested in any 'revenge politics'. I only posted the above to see if there are any proponents left for the comp.unix.xenix.misc group. If there is a call to remove this groups it should not be made by me. Some people may think I am pro-SCO and accuse me of a communistic plot to remove any group that does not have sco in it's name! :-) BTW, I have yet to received any mail from people that want this group. [ Note I did not cross post to comp.unix.xenix.misc and this may explain why I have not received any mail. (I will cross post this article.) ] If there is anyone out there that would like to keep this group I would be interested in hearing from you. dma@pcssc.com or just respond to this postings. The reason I said that I think comp.unix.xenix.misc should be removed is that there is very little posting here and what there is seems to be misdirected. The charter for this group states: comp.unix.xenix.misc General discussion regarding XENIX (except SCO) Discussions regarding SCO Xenix should be directed to: comp.unix.xenix.sco Xenix versions from the Santa Cruz Operation. Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma PC Software Systems | dma@pcssc.com 4370 S. Tamiami Trail | Phone: (813)922-8857 Sarasota, FL 34231-3400 | The voters have spoken, but they were wrong! - comp.unix.wizards
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (12/16/90)
In article <1990Dec14.022355.16430@pcssc.com-> dma@pcssc.com (Dave Armbrust) writes: ->In article <27770@cs.yale.edu> yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes: ->>dma@pcssc.com (Dave Armbrust) writes: ->>>Once the guidelines are exstablished for removal of groups I ->>>will issue a call to remove comp.unix.xenix.misc unless I hear ->>>from at least 25 people that want this group. ->I am not interested in any 'revenge politics'. I only posted the above ->to see if there are any proponents left for the comp.unix.xenix.misc ->group. If there is a call to remove this groups it should not be ->made by me. Some people may think I am pro-SCO and accuse me of a ->communistic plot to remove any group that does not have sco in it's name! :-) -> why I have not received any mail. (I will cross post this article.) ] ->If there is anyone out there that would like to keep this group I would ->be interested in hearing from you. dma@pcssc.com or just respond ->to this postings. ->The reason I said that I think comp.unix.xenix.misc should be removed ->is that there is very little posting here and what there is seems ->to be misdirected. The charter for this group states: -> Dave - if you will look at what happens when the other groups have been split, you will see why removing comp.unix.xenix.misc is wrong. The group that should be removed is comp.unix.xenix and leave us with only comp.unix.xenix.misc and comp.unix.xenix.sco. That way you have two separate camps to take care of the non-SCO xenix people, and you won't wind up with nearly as much crossposting. This is the way virtually all other group re-originizations have gone. You alias the top group to misc for x number of months, then remove the top group. See comp.sys.ibm.pc for an example. bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/20/90)
According to bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion): >The group that should be removed is comp.unix.xenix and leave us with only >comp.unix.xenix.misc and comp.unix.xenix.sco. The removal of comp.unix.xenix was supposed to be a done deed. If your site still carries comp.unix.xenix, you are in the minority. I suggest you inform your administrator that comp.unix.xenix is an obsolete group and should be rmgrouped locally. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (12/21/90)
In article <2770BF0B.67A4@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion): >>The group that should be removed is comp.unix.xenix and leave us with only >>comp.unix.xenix.misc and comp.unix.xenix.sco. > >The removal of comp.unix.xenix was supposed to be a done deed. > >If your site still carries comp.unix.xenix, you are in the minority. >I suggest you inform your administrator that comp.unix.xenix is an >obsolete group and should be rmgrouped locally. How about sending out a fresh batch of rmgroup's to clean up the groups that should have been removed with the renaming? It should be part of the rmgroup/renaming guidelines (are you listening, Eliot?) that rmgroups are executed again after some time period is up to catch any people that haven't done the alias/rmgroup thingy. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "While you are here, your wives and girlfriends are dating handsome American movie and TV stars. Stars like Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, and Bart Simpson."
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (12/26/90)
According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II): >How about sending out a fresh batch of rmgroup's to clean up the >groups that should have been removed with the renaming? Including comp.unix.wizards? :-) :-) JUST A LITTLE JOKE, THERE! Good idea. I will issue rmgroups for comp.unix.{i386,microport,xenix} after the first of the year, when all admins should be back. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Please don't send me any more of yer scandalous email, Mr. Salzenberg..." -- Bruce Becker