limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) (10/19/90)
[This is being cross-posted to news.groups... because newsgroup-type
stuff should be.]
I retract my idea for c.s.a.emulate (because I agree that is is a
fad.)
I have found one person that is willing to be the moderator for
c.s.a.announce (should it be created).
I think there is a lot of concensus about:
comp.sys.amiga ---> comp.sys.amiga.misc
comp.sys.amiga.tech ---> comp.sys.amiga.programmer
create ---> comp.sys.amiga.announce
create ---> comp.sys.amiga.applications
(well, I'm not sure if there is good agreement on the last one. I'd
be interested in discussion.)
I don't have time to do the official call for discussion, call for
votes, vote collection, etc. Midterms start soon around here, and I
want to graduate on time :-) (this Spring). Is there anyone else
willing to do this?
Agenda of things to discuss:
1) Do we do the reorganization in one vote, or in many? (I think we
could rename the two groups in one all-or-nothing vote; and create the
new newsgroups in separate votes)?
2) Do we want to create comp.sys.amiga.applications? Should we create
a different name for that kind of group or do we want some other topic?
3) Do we want to appoint a net.sargent.at.arms?
Someone with the duty of sending people polite
email ("approved" form-letters only) saying things like (but more
polite than this) "Hi, I don't know if your post was placed in the
right newsgroup, but here is the official definitions for future
reference." or "Your post was inappropriate considering the charter of
the comp.sys.amiga.* groups... etc. etc." or "You're a goober, go
away." (The last one is optional)
What do you think?
-Tom
--
tlimonce@drew.edu Tom Limoncelli "Freedom and justice
tlimonce@drew.uucp +1 201 408 5389 are opposites"
tlimonce@drew.Bitnet limonce@pilot.njin.net -mexanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (10/20/90)
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >[This is being cross-posted to news.groups... because newsgroup-type >stuff should be.] Wonderful. Now, while we still have no idea what we want to propose, you've called the whole damn net down on our heads with a half baked excerpt of the unformed proposal. I PUT "LOCAL DISCUSSION " IN THE THREAD TITLE FOR A REASON! Please, when you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Now I've got to cross-post in turn, to try to repair the damage: NEWS.GROUPS: There is a preliminary discussion going on in comp.sys.amiga about partitioning the newsgroup, in response to many complaints from sysops having to expire the group in 1/3rd normal time to avoid breaking news software, from people who receive the group by email relay, and have no choice but to slog through it article by article, and from the general readership, many of whom are overwhelmed. To save exposing the whole net to an ungelled proposal in news.groups, the boring and not of general interest "should we really split the group, what groups should we make, and what should we name them" parts of the discussion is taking place locally in comp.sys.amiga until there is a coherent proposal to put forth, as per standard net practice. This has already spared you 160 KBytes of commentary; comp.sys.amiga has a _huge_ readership/postership. I'm in charge of the reorganization (per my promise a couple of months back while running the comp.sys.amiga.games vote), in the same sense in which Chip did the comp.unix reorganization. Anybody wants to flame me for the way I'm doing this, my mailbox is listed below; keep it off the net. I have scheduled a CFD to news.announce.newgroups (w/ a crosspost to news.groups) for 1 Nov 1990, at which point you are all welcome to stomp up and down on things to your hearts' content. Until then, a little peace and quiet while I get things in order would be much appreciated, as would just ignoring any hyperenthusiastic cross-posts, forged newgroup messages, and other newbie idiocy. Your cooperation will be delightfully accepted. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (10/22/90)
In article <3409@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: >>Discussions like this belong in news.groups, not in the system >>hierarchy. > >Notice the subject line? call for ***LOCAL*** discussion. We are not proposing >the groups yet. Kent Dolan merely wanted to start a discussion to see if it >was even feasible to start an official discussion in news.groups. As of yet >we havent even decided that we will try to split up c.s.a. much less which >groups to try to split it into. This is a very preliminary discussion so far. So this is a meta discussion on whether or not a news.groups discussion should be held. Sounds like a typical news.groups discussion to me. Seriously, news.groups is here to take the noise of group plans out of the hierarchy (even if they are about thinking about splitting a group). If people are interested in a discussion about splitting the group they will subscribe to news.groups. Followups to news.groups. Pax, Keith
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (10/24/90)
In article <15300@cbmvax.commodore.com>, ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: > So this is a meta discussion on whether or not a news.groups > discussion should be held. Sounds like a typical news.groups > discussion to me. I agree... it's time to take it to news.groups. I'm tired of reading an overloaded comp.sys.amiga trying to keep up with this discussion. The very reason the split is needed is a good reason to take it to news.groups. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com