laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (10/25/90)
[This is a reposting, because there were complaints that the Reply-to
header was not correctly set.]
PROPOSAL:
To revise the newsgroup "comp.unix.internals".
The choices for a new name are "comp.unix.esoterica" and
"comp.unix.wizards".
CHARTER:
The new newsgroup shall not directly encompass the subject matter
covered by comp.unix.internals. It will revive the previous
charter of comp.unix.wizards with the consideration that
newsgroups now exist for general discussion on specific topics.
Articles in this newsgroup should therefore contain information
which is of interest to the unix community but which might not
be generally known by the members of that community.
Cross-posting of articles from other groups shall be encouraged
if the information meets the above criterion. Especially welcome
are facts not usually discoverable by the reader.
Posting of questions to this group will be strongly discouraged.
Follow-up articles should only be posted to correct an error or
ambiguity. Contributors should take heed that many professionals
rely on the accuracy of the information posted in this group for
their work. Technical accuracy is better than a timely
VOTING:
The voting period commences on October 25th, and continues until
November 25th. A mass acknowlegement will not be posted prior
to the end of the vote unless warranted. Votes must be mailed,
posted votes will not be counted. One vote per mailing, proxies
and mailing lists do not count.
Votes both for and against this proposal may be mailed to
samsung!slum!votes, [decwrl!]decvax!slum!votes, or
votes@slum.mv.com. The domain path costs more and takes longer;
uunet!samsung!slum is a very fast path.
All votes will be tallied with a script, as with awk.
The Subject: line ONLY will contain the vote. To retain the
current comp.unix.internals, put 'comp.unix.internals' or
'internals' on the Subject: line. Similarly, to vote for
comp.unix.esoterica, include that or the word esoterica on
the Subject: line, and to vote for comp.unix.wizards, put
comp.unix.wizards or just wizards somewhere on the Subject:
lin
RESULTS:
The final vote tally will be mailed on 11/25 and the votes
posted. The vote fails if more than 1/3 of the votes were
against both comp.unix.wizards and comp.unix.esoterica, or if
neither comp.unix.wizards nor comp.unix.esoterica has enough votes
to be created. The vote succeeds for either comp.unix.wizards
or comp.unix.esoterica only if that group receives 100 more votes
for it than against it and if that group receives at least twice
the number of votes as the other.
This deserves some explanation in terms of the Guidelines.
In effect, this is a two-part vote. We only create a new group
if the vote against comp.unix.internals succeeds. A vote for
either of the others is a vote against comp.unix.internals, but
we do not want to remove it with nothing in its place, so even
after 2/3 of the votes go against it, we must make sure 2/3 of
the votes are for the new group. Since the spirit of the Guidelines
go
MODERATION:
This is to be an unmoderated newsgroup. If inappropriate
articles do prove to be a problem within the new comp.unix
hierarchy, and a qualified moderator steps forward, this
charter will hopefully help clarify the need and allow a
quick decision by the voters at that time.jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/25/90)
In article <m0iRhWG-0000mPC-x@chinet.chi.il.us> oddjob!chinet!samsung!slum!laird@gargoyle.uchicago.edu writes: >PROPOSAL: > To revise the newsgroup "comp.unix.internals". > The choices for a new name are "comp.unix.esoterica" and > "comp.unix.wizards". I would like to thank Laird for stepping forward to do this. I know from his letters that he is looking forward to a nice happy vote ;-) I encourage everyone who sent me votes to resend them to Laird for his counting. I hope this clears up the entire issue, and with a little luck, we should have comp.unix.wizards back in time for the holidays. This "call for votes" by Laird is part of a deal worked out between Eliot, Laird, and myself to get the vote moving in a forward and productive manner. In order to avoid further confusion, please do not post anything more regarding the old vote. It has been called off and all tallied votes will be disregarded. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) (10/30/90)
[I hope I'm not being impossibly gauche in following up to a CFV.] In article <m0iRhWG-0000mPC-xx@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >[This is a reposting, because there were complaints that the Reply-to > header was not correctly set.] > Votes both for and against this proposal may be mailed to > samsung!slum!votes, [decwrl!]decvax!slum!votes, or > votes@slum.mv.com. I don't know what "correctly set" means, but <m0iRhWG-0000mPC-xx@chinet.chi.il.us> as received here has no Reply-To: line, neither laird@chinet.chi.il.us, samsung!slum!votes, decvax!slum!votes, nor votes@slum.mv.com. > The Subject: line ONLY will contain the vote. To retain the > current comp.unix.internals, put 'comp.unix.internals' or > 'internals' on the Subject: line. Maybe this is the way such votes are always run, but doesn't this bias the results subtly in favor of comp.unix.internals? Anyone who doesn't read the directions carefully, and replies with a vote in the message body while retaining the automatically- generated Re: header, has just voted for internals. (Actually, the lack of a proper Reply-To: line helps here, since it forces manual intervention.) Finally, how is it that the CFV article has now been posted three times and it still has these weird formatting problems? Most of the last lines just before the "section headings" are truncated: > rely on the accuracy of the information posted in this group for > their work. Technical accuracy is better than a timely >VOTING: Eliot's second post (referred to in <Oct.24.17.59.18.1990.1584@turbo.bio.net>) allegedly was to fix the "particularly bizarre" formatting problems, yet they (at least some of them; I never saw the first post) were in that copy, too. Am I the only one having this problem? Is my site not canceling or superseding articles properly? Steve Summit scs@adam.mit.edu
linwood@cbnewsk.att.com (linwood.d.johnson) (10/30/90)
> > > The Subject: line ONLY will contain the vote. To retain the > > current comp.unix.internals, put 'comp.unix.internals' or > > 'internals' on the Subject: line. I don't know what all of this noise is about; but, my vote is in the header. So, count me please!!!! -- +===================================================================+ | Linwood D. Johnson | linwood@ihlpf.att.com | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine and mine only. |
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (10/30/90)
I had to reissue the message twice - once because somehow my site had decided to chop the article in half, and once because there were complaints from one of the upstream sites in the Reply-to header. <m0iRhWG-0000mPC> is the original message. <m0iRhWG-0000mPC-x> had the bad reply-to. <m0iRhWG-0000mPC-xx> has no Reply-to. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]