towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM (Mark Towfigh) (06/16/90)
In article <4488@infmx.UUCP> kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes:
Now I would like to finalize my proposal on creation of a new
newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration".
Gaah!
Here is a list of all persons who have responded to my postings
[.....]
Obviously, majority wanted to create such a newsgroup on USENET.
Among 54, 30 said "Yes", 17 said "No", and 7 were not clear.
I think this may have been proper procedure in 1982.
[.....]
So, could you create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration"
as soon as possible so that we can discuss seriously and aggressively,
and nobody can bother either "comp.protocols.iso" or "comp.protocols.tcp-ip"
any more ??
Bother the people directly involved in this issue?
Persons who have responded to my proposal so far:
[list deleted]
This is ridiculous. Comp.protocols.iso *maybe* had about two articles
a day in it before this "proposal" came up, and it jumped to a
whopping five after that. I see *no reason* for the creation of a new
newsgroup, especially since the normal procedures for group creation
have been disregarded, or garbled at best.
Kwang: read news.announce.newusers. I think you would probably
realize from there that there is *no need* for an ISO migration group;
relevant articles can just be crossposted to
comp.protocols.{iso,tcp-ip}.
Mark
--
Mark Towfigh, Racal InterLan, Inc. towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM
W: (508) 263-9929 H: (617) 488-2818 uunet!interlan!towfiq
"The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah