frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (04/13/90)
I am not quite happy with the two proposals. The main reason is simply that
although most of the newsgroups being proposed have been mentioned on
news.groups, each proposal as a whole has never been posted there for
discussion.
Calling for votes on a proposal which has not been discussed does not seem
to be entirely according to the guidelines for newsgroup creation. In fact,
I would call it completely invalid.
Also, one of the groups being proposed is
comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware
This group was proposed originally, but the general consensus seemed
to be against it. Most posters (including myself), felt that a single
.hardware group was all that would be needed. So, saying that
The proposed names above represent a true consensus of
people who either sent me mail or posted to news.groups.
is something I can not fully agree with.
Finally - the original call for discussion did not mention any changes to
comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer, but now the group is to be removed. Seems
hardly fair without any discussion.
Although I firmly believe that a reorganization of the PC-related newsgroups
is needed, I would vote NO in the case of both proposals, if I was
convinced they were valid.
The first proposal deals with reorganization of the OS/2 groups, as well as
creation of comp.os.msdos.subgroups. The original call for discussion did
not make it clear that OS/2 reorganization was to be discussed as well, and
no strong need for splitting up comp.os.os2 has appeared. I would therefore
vote against this part of the proposal.
The second part of the first proposal, the creation of the
comp.os.msdos.subgroups has also not been discussed. I support and would
vote for
comp.os.msdos
and possibly
comp.os.msdos.apps,
comp.os.msdos.misc and
comp.os.msdos.programmer ?
As the proposal must be voted upon as a whole, I would give it a NO vote.
The second proposal is also a bit of a problem. The most important question
is what we really want the comp.sys.ibm.pc groups to deal with. Do we only
want to discuss OS-independent issues there, and discuss all the MS-DOS
material in comp.os.msdos(.*), the OS/2 material in comp.os.os2(.*) and the
XENIX/Minix/other elsewhere ?
In this case, the comp.sys.ibm.pc(.*) groups would be left dealing with nothing
but the hardware. This seems to be the intention, according to proposal 2,
but such a massive shift has not been discussed at all.
--
Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland |
Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion
E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 |