templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) (11/30/90)
I want to make a proposal on what we do about the unix-pc.* great renaming
and/or re-organization issue.
1) We started out just wanting to change unix-pc.* to comp.sys.3b1. Many
had realized that there were distribution problems with the unix-pc.*
groups and wanted to use the mainstream as a way to get all the postings.
Many were worried about a perceived large number of 'unix on my PC' postings.
2) Some other people jumped in after the CFD and decided that this was a good
opportunity to reorganize comp.sys.att. Now it is hard to see discussion
on news.groups that does not touch on this issue. I think the net.at.large
has gotten this in its head and it may be hard for us to turn the discussion
back to comp.sys.3b1 (or whatever you want to put there.)
Thus it seems to me we have a three choices:
1) Take on the whole comp.sys.att reorganization NOW. Put the 3b1 somewhere
under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.att.7300, comp.sys.att.unixpc,
comp.sys.att.3b1. We then have a sources group to match in comp.sources.
We also propose creation of comp.sys.att.3b2, comp.sys.att.63xx, etc.
2) we propose to put the new group under comp.sys.att.{3b1,unixpc,7300} and
state that we would like to make the new group compatible with any FUTURE
reorganization, but we really are only interested in the 3b1 models. We
say 'let the 3b2 owners get their own newsgroup passed.'
3) we propose to call the group comp.sys.convergent.s4 which completely
divorces us from at&t and explicitly include the CT people.
Pros: 1) will probably be viewed best by the net.at.large (the non-unixpc
people who will vote on it anyway because they like reorganizing newsgroups.)
2) might go over OK too.
2) is probably the least hassle for us on unix-pc.*.
3) gets us away from the whole att issue.
Cons: 1) we have to get everybody to agree to a much larger set of changes
which will probably be more time-consuming.
2) but some might say 'why should we put up with it
now AND THEN AGAIN when the 3b2 people wanna do it?'
3) this really does make the group hard to find. it might not be likely
that someone who purchases a UNIXPC would ever think to look in
comp.sys.convergent.s4. We could solve this by crossposting our monthly
posting to comp.sys.att.
Well, my proposal is that we decide on one of the above three, and then
try to push it through (or else let's drop the whole issue, and those of
us who want to get all the articles just start posting in comp.sys.att
and crosspost to unix-pc.general so we don't leave out those people.)
My personal favorite is proposal 2), since it has in my opinion the
max possibility for causing us the least hassle and least resistance from
the net.guardians. I also favor out of the three possible names in 2)
using comp.sys.att.3b1. I think there is enough opposition to the name
comp.sys.att.unixpc that it's not worth considering, and I don't think
ANYONE is advocating comp.sys.att.7300.
Let's hear what the rest of you think.
Jeffdave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (12/01/90)
In article <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > Let's hear what the rest of you think. > Count me in for #2 also! (My, how time and discussion changes our minds!) DAS -- David Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (12/02/90)
In article <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: |[...] |Thus it seems to me we have a three choices: | |1) Take on the whole comp.sys.att reorganization NOW. Put the 3b1 somewhere |under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.att.7300, comp.sys.att.unixpc, |comp.sys.att.3b1. We then have a sources group to match in comp.sources. |We also propose creation of comp.sys.att.3b2, comp.sys.att.63xx, etc. | |2) we propose to put the new group under comp.sys.att.{3b1,unixpc,7300} and |state that we would like to make the new group compatible with any FUTURE |reorganization, but we really are only interested in the 3b1 models. We |say 'let the 3b2 owners get their own newsgroup passed.' | |3) we propose to call the group comp.sys.convergent.s4 which completely |divorces us from at&t and explicitly include the CT people. 4) we begin to wonder what the fuss was all about, and gradually but inexorably come to the conclusion that it wasn't a very good idea after all. I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of number 4. -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly) (12/04/90)
(I've rearranged the order of these) In article <57804@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > >4) we begin to wonder what the fuss was all about, and >gradually but inexorably come to the conclusion that it >wasn't a very good idea after all. > The classic "bury your head in the sand" approach. This won't solve the problems of connectivity or of inappropriate postings from International BM users. >In article <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: >|[...] >|Thus it seems to me we have a three choices: >| >|3) we propose to call the group comp.sys.convergent.s4 which completely >|divorces us from at&t and explicitly include the CT people. Others have proposed other variants not under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.3b1, comp.sys.s4, etc. The connectivity problem may improve under this, but some non-backbone sites might still not carry these groups (I don't carry comp.sys.hp, comp.sys.dec, comp.sys.ibm, comp.sys.amiga, comp.sys.next, etc. here). Some have said that they don't want the group under comp.sys.att because ``AT&T abandoned us, except for some individuals...'' I don't know if the people in AT&T who have continued to support the 3b1 are doing so on their own time, or with the support of AT&T. Even if they get some minimal corporate support, such negative attitudes from 3b1 owners are likely to cause that support to vanish. I'm sure the 3b1 discontinuation was a sound business decision at the time, and AT&T should be commended for the level of support they have continued for such a discontinued product (compare to other companies). >|2) we propose to put the new group under comp.sys.att.{3b1,unixpc,7300} and >|state that we would like to make the new group compatible with any FUTURE >|reorganization, but we really are only interested in the 3b1 models. We >|say 'let the 3b2 owners get their own newsgroup passed.' > This sounds nice, but consider that comp.text.dwb recently failed to pass by 99 to 28 (if I recall the numbers correctly) in favor of the group, because of the guideline which requires yes votes to exceed no votes by at least 100. So in spite of between a 3:1 and 4:1 ratio of yes to no votes, the group failed. This proposal was to cover Documenter's Workbench, i.e. troff, grap , pic, etc. An important point is that in spite of the fact that troff and nroff are widely used (all the UNIX(R) man pages, for example), apathy prevailed -- with only 127 votes cast it's virtually impossible to get yes > no + 100. I wonder how many votes we'll be able to get for a specialized separate group that deals only with our machines, if that's the only issue. >|1) Take on the whole comp.sys.att reorganization NOW. Put the 3b1 somewhere >|under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.att.7300, comp.sys.att.unixpc, >|comp.sys.att.3b1. [ ... ] This would ensure enough interest to potentially get enough votes to pass (see above). It's likely to pass as it would permit removal of the unix-pc and u3b alternate distributions, and would consolidate everything under comp.sys.att, reducing the need for crosposting. But I think comp.sys.att.unixpc is NG, due to the Int'l BM problem. >|[ ... ] We then have a sources group to match in comp.sources. >|We also propose creation of comp.sys.att.3b2, comp.sys.att.63xx, etc. I don't think mass creation of many new sources groups will fly. Let's just deal with comp.sources.3b1 as a moderated group. If possible, that should be a separate issue from the comp.sys.att reorganization for the purposes of a vote. If we don't get the separate sources group, souce postings could be made in comp.sys.att.3b1 with an appropriate subject line. 5) Not yet mentioned -- we could propose making unix-pc an official part of the hierarchy. This hasn't a chance, and wouldn't solve the crossposting problem. Don't even think about it. In summary, I feel that our best shot is to go for the comp.sys.att reorganization, moving unix-pc into comp.sys.att.3b1 and u3b into comp.sys.att.3b2+ (or comp.sys.att.7300 and comp.sys.att.3b or some similar variant). The sources group should be comp.sources.3b1, moderated, and should be a separate vote. Anybody want to tackle the CFV? -- Bruce Lilly, Product Manager, | bruce@Broadcast.Sony.COM Digital Television Tape Recording, | uunet!{sonyusa,vmp}!sonyd1!bruce Sony, 3 Paragon Drive, Montvale, | lilb@sony.compuserve.com (slow) NJ 07645-1735 | Telephone: 1(201)358-4161 | FAX: 1(201)358-4089
donlash@uncle.uucp (Donald Lashomb) (12/05/90)
In article <57804@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: > >4) we begin to wonder what the fuss was all about, and >gradually but inexorably come to the conclusion that it >wasn't a very good idea after all. > > >I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of number 4. Me too, let's leave well enough alone. The old saw "if it ain't broke don't fix it" might apply here. Don donlash@uncle.UUCP
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (12/08/90)
In article <1990Dec4.135723.1608@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM> bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly) writes:
I wonder how many votes we'll be able to get for a specialized
separate group that deals only with our machines, if that's the
only issue.
You'll get mine, regardless of the fact that I don't read the groups.
You folks have convinced me right away that you need a change. Any of
the proposals I've seen would get my YES vote, whenever you make up
your minds and call a vote.
It takes so little effort to read a call for votes and vote that I
can't see NOT voting.
I hope you get the same support from others. USENET is for everybody.
--
peace. -- Ed
"Over here, Bones! This man's dying!"
"Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a . . . What did you say?"mhw@lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) (12/08/90)
Here I am, at the console of my trusty 3b1, where I should have been all the time. Serves me right for trying to use a vax 750 when I should have been using a real machine. Anyway, back to our story: In article <1990Dec4.135723.1608@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM> bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM (Bruce Lilly) writes: > >In summary, I feel that our best shot is to go for the >comp.sys.att reorganization, moving unix-pc into comp.sys.att.3b1 >and u3b into comp.sys.att.3b2+ ... Not surprisingly, I agree with you. I would much prefer to straighten out everything at the same time, but things are never quite that tidy here on the net. The unix-pc people (me included) are ready to vote as to whether 3b1 should be under att or not. Don't forget that the vote is open to everyone, not just unix-pc'ers. Anyone with an opinion about how the namespace is structured is encouraged to vote. There is no such thing as a perfect name for a group. For example if this new 68040 Unisys machine is a success, then we could discuss 3b1's under comp.sys.unisys! And then, if AT&T buys out Unisys, the group could be renamed to comp.sys.att.unisys.convergent.s4 :-) :-) Anyway, don't forget to vote, and thanks to Jan for taking the time to go through with this. -- Mark H. Weber ( mhw@Schuylkill.Canal.Org ) "Schuylkill" (skool' kill) Mont Clare ( ...!uunet!cbmvax!cgh!lock60!mhw ) is a Dutch word meaning PA USA ( ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw ) "hidden river"