markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (12/04/90)
In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: > >OK, I am willing to try and write a charter for the new newsgroup and post >it to news.groups, if someone else will volunteer to take votes... > >1) name: comp.sys.att.3b1, comp.sources.att.3b1 I'm willing to run the vote, but I'd prefer to run a vote for the rest of the new groups at the same time. I would be willing to write the charters for all the groups. If some well-connected person will volunteer to moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group I will run a vote for that, also. In order to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the new groups at the same time: comp.sys.att.3b1 3b1's, UNIX-PC's, 7300's, and related CT machines comp.sys.att.3b2 3b2's and related machines (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..) comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 comp.sys.att.misc Miscellaneous discussions about AT&T machines comp.sources.att.3b1 Sources for 3b1's (moderated) A simple "yes" vote would be interpreted as a "yes" for all five groups. A simple "no" vote would be interpreted as a "no" vote for all five groups. Mixed votes would also be allowed, I'll process them by hand. Each group would have pass the guideline criteria (YES - NO > 100, YES:NO > 2:1) in order to be created. Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. -- Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (12/04/90)
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: >In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: >> >>OK, I am willing to try and write a charter for the new newsgroup and post >>it to news.groups, if someone else will volunteer to take votes... >> >I'm willing to run the vote, but I'd prefer to run a vote for the rest of >the new groups at the same time. I would be willing to write the charters >for all the groups. If some well-connected person will volunteer to moderate >the comp.sources.att.3b1 group I will run a vote for that, also. In order >to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the >new groups at the same time: no, no, and no. > comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the 386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes. >Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. >Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel >my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that >we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to >moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. Well, yes Mark, I do object. I posted the call for discussion, remember? No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown. I have been considering your proposals with great care. However, it is my opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att. Time, I think, is on our side. Several people have said that they want to get a vote in before the holidays. Well, the holidays are already here. Further, I think that a vote over the holidays would favor either proposal because it is my belief that *many* people who are *really* interested in this (and on our sides) are leaf sites with home systems who would not miss out on a vote over the holidays. But, I could be wrong. Seems to be a lot of grumbling about "too much noise". Well, people, this is how the process is supposed to work, to give everyone a chance to voice an opinion. That takes time. I should take time because if it aint done right, you will have to live with it for a long time. Anyone remember comp.unix.wizards? I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. Jan -- Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan
markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: >markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > >>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. >>Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel >>my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that >>we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to >>moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. > >Well, yes Mark, I do object. I posted the call for discussion, remember? > >No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown. > I'm truly sorry about this. A quick check of the system here shows that our mailer is broken. The automatic forwarding from our gateway machine "GVL.Unisys.COM" won't work, but mail directly to my workstation cluster "gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM" will work OK. Serves me right for trying to do this from work, rather than from my trusty 3b1 at home! I erroneously assumed that the lack of correspondence from you indicated that you were willing to go along with my proposal. >I have been considering your proposals with great care. However, it is my >opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have >really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att. I agree that the reorganization of comp.sys.att probably needs more discussion. I was hoping to take care of both proposals with a single vote. I think there is a fair amount of support for the reorganization from other AT&T users. >> comp.sys.att.63xx 6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386 > >I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the >386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes. > I got this idea from the maintainer of the pc63xx mailing list, who listed these machines as the boxes which are discussed on the list. I agree that the discussions about 386 unix belong in comp.unix.sv386, but don't some people run DOS on 6386 boxes? >I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if >everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. > Please do. I would only ask that you call the group comp.sys.att.3b1 rather than comp.sys.3b1. The has been some opposition to the new group proposal from people who don't understand why it shouldn't be under comp.sys.att. While there are some similar Convergent and Motorola boxes out there, the vast majority say AT&T on them. This name would also be compatible with a future reorganization of comp.sys.att, which I will propose later, probably after the holidays (and after I get my mailer fixed!). Once again, sorry about this mixup. I'm looking forward to voting for a new 3b1 group in the near future. Mark Internet: markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw (yes, these addresses DO work)
das@trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec3.205742.18931@news.gvl.unisys.com>, markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for > Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. > Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel > my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that > we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to > moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email. > Great, let's do it !!!!! DAS -- David Snyder @ UE&C - Catalytic in Philadelphia, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!trac2000!das INTERNET: das@trac2000.ueci.com
yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) (12/05/90)
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: > >I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if >everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you. Jan: If you are going to post a call for votes, indicate what you would do about the sources group ahead of time. Many people are assuming the call for votes will include a sources group, but your call for discussion did not provide for one. -- Norman Yarvin yarvin-norman@cs.yale.edu Christmas -- the day when we celebrate the birth of a 2000 year old superstition by watching pine trees slowly die in our living rooms.
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec4.164232.22013@news.gvl.unisys.com> markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes: ... >Please do. I would only ask that you call the group comp.sys.att.3b1 >rather than comp.sys.3b1. The has been some opposition to the new group >proposal from people who don't understand why it shouldn't be under >comp.sys.att. While there are some similar Convergent and Motorola >boxes out there, the vast majority say AT&T on them. This name would >also be compatible with a future reorganization of comp.sys.att, which >I will propose later, probably after the holidays (and after I get my >mailer fixed!). > I'm still unclear on the advantage of placing the 3b1 group under the .att. group. If the group ends up comp.sys.3b1 then there's no problem with compatibility with the future re-organization of comp.sys.att, right? I really do believe the Convergent and Motorola owners will find the group, regardless of it's location, but how do we settle this group-name thing before a call for votes? -- name & address (this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR dwn@swbatl.sbc.com David Neill office -> 405-291-1990 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo) home -> 405-843-4464 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david
jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (12/07/90)
dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) writes: >I'm still unclear on the advantage of placing the 3b1 group under >the .att. group. If the group ends up comp.sys.3b1 then there's >no problem with compatibility with the future re-organization of >comp.sys.att, right? I really do believe the Convergent and Motorola >owners will find the group, regardless of it's location, but how do >we settle this group-name thing before a call for votes? There are 2 ways to settle it. 1. declare that there is a majority in favor of comp.sys.3b1 and call a vote for it. There is some evidence that this position is justifiable. 2. do a "multi-way" vote that allows for voting for the name as well as the group itself. I have sent a call for votes to Eliot. It is #2, by the way. I think it is the only fair way to do it. Jan -- The good and the bad thing about drugs | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 drugs is that they wear off. -Elliston | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan