chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/24/90)
[note: I only plan on posting this whenever 'enough' things have changed to
warrant it. Now that the proposal is starting to settle out, I hope that
will be no more than twice a week, preferably once a week. -- chuq]
The result of the survey on using the proposal stands at 146 yes, 2 no. I'll
still count votes, but unless there's a massive swing between now and the
end of the discussion period I'm going to use a single call for votes
proposal with multiple votes. I'm not going to report on this survey again
unless the results change radically until the end of the discussion period.
I've closed the survey on apps vs. appl. Apps won, and the change has been
put in the proposal.
I've started three new surveys (gee, this is fun). The question of the name
of c.s.m.os, the name of c.s.m.wanted and the moderation status of
c.s.m.virus. See below for details.
New issues:
o I haven't mentioned c.s.m.hardware (oops). I don't plan on changing it at
this time, unless there's reason to think it ought to be a hierarchy like
c.s.m.apps is, and then we should rename to c.s.m.hardware.misc, which I
think is overkill.
o Another possible name for c.s.m.os -- c.s.m.sysfold.
o Should comp.sys.mac.virus be moderated or unmoderated? My preference is
unmoderated (I am assuming that c.s.m.announce is created. I think two
moderated groups at this time are unnecessary) but there are persuasive
arguments on the other side.
o Should more subgroups of c.s.m.apps be created? c.s.m.apps.wordproc and
c.s.m.apps.database (or variations of those names) have been suggested.
Which brings up the general question: how much is too much? Is this
overkill, or are sub-groups really needed? I'd like to see discussion of
this point.
New Surveys:
(1) Please send me e-mail with your preferred name for what is currently
comp.sys.mac.os. Rank the following by preference:
c.s.m.os
c.s.m.sysf
c.s.m.sysfold
c.s.m.system
If you feel that a name is not appropriate, rank it with 'NA'. If you
have no preferences, don't rank the work. Here's how I'll count this:
the name ranked 1 will get 5 points, 2nd three, third two and fourth 1.
Names not mentioned (no preference) will get zero. Names marked 'NA'
will get minus 2 (-2). Example: a person wants sysf or system, doesn't
care about os and hates sysfold. His vote would be:
(1) sysf
(2) system
(NA) sysfold
I'll use the name with the largest point total at the end. One vote per
person, and the survey will continue until March 1.
(2) Please send me e-mail on the appropriate name for c.s.m.wanted. Rank
the following by preference:
c.s.m.wanted
c.s.m.help
c.s.m.request
same rules as the c.s.m.os survey apply.
(3) Whether c.s.m.virus should be moderated or unmoderated.
Survey status:
Final name of c.s.m.os. Point totals: c.s.m.os 0; c.s.m.sysf 0;
c.s.m.sysfold 0; c.s.m.system 0.
[[survey ends March 1. See 2/23/90 status posting for voting
details]]
Final name of c.s.m.wanted. Point totals: c.s.m.wanted 0; c.s.m.help 0;
c.s.m.request 0.
[[survey ends March 1. See 2/23/90 status posting for voting
details]]
Whether comp.sys.mac.virus should be moderated or unmoderated. Results:
moderated 0; unmoderated 0.
[[survey continues indefinitely]]
Whether or not to allow variation from the guidelines for the 'multiple
votes in a single proposal' for the reorganization: Yes, 146, no, 2.
[[proposal considered passed]]
Whether to use comp.sys.mac.apps or comp.sys.mac.appl: apps 17, appl 7.
[[recommendation 'apps']]
---===---===---===---===---===
new changes to text of proposal.
---===---===---===---===---===
none.
---===---===---===---===---===
proposed text of call for votes proposal. (hint: you don't need to read this
unless you haven't seen it before or want to check on changes noted changes)
---===---===---===---===---===
Please vote on each proposal separately. You may vote 'yes', 'no' or
'abstain/no preference' (or whatever terms you want for these as long as
they're non-ambiguous),
Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. This will be in
multiple stages: the creation of comp.sys.mac.misc, followed a few
weeks later by the rmgroup of comp.sys.mac and the addition of a usenet
alias to the new group to forward misdirected messages. This will bring
c.s.m into the same standardized naming as other hierarchies, and it
should also discourage some of the cross-posting between c.s.m and
sub-groups that happens when people think they should put it in the
parent group just in case.
Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os. This will be for discussion of
Macintosh system software -- the system, finder, multifinder, CDEVs, INITs
and other Apple and third party Operating System software and its
extensions.
Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.apps.misc. This will be for
discussion of Macintosh applications. It is designed as the beginning of a
sub-hierarchy of groups, hence the creation of c.s.m.a.misc instead of
c.s.m.apps.
Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.apps.hypercard.
To standardize naming in the new scheme.
Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. A place for the "I'm missing
part five of..." or "I need a program that does..." or "Where can I get a
good price on..." messages. There was some discussion of creating a sister
group c.s.m.forsale, but for sale messages really should be encouraged to go
into a regional group and not a net-wide group.
Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games. A group for the
discussion of macintosh-based computer games.
Proposal 7: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.comm. A group for the
discussion of telecommunication and networking software and programs: Red
Ryder, Microphone, Appleshare, etc.
Proposal 8: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.virus. For discussion of
macintosh viruses, reports, prevention and etc.
Proposal 9: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.announce, to be created
moderated. Moderator to be appointed at some future time. Designed to be a
low-volume, high-content group for distribution of information, regular
postings (like the "where to find...", and "introduction to comp.sys.mac"
documents, postings like virus alerts and other forms of information
(product announcements? press releases?) to be determined.
No changes: comp.sys.mac.programmer, comp.sys.mac.digest, comp.sys.mac.hardware
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking]
I don't know what's scarier: President Reagan saying he had no inkling of
his aides doing anything illegal, or an ex-president who uses the word inkling.chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/24/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: Here, in a separate article where you can ignore it if you wish, are my preferences on the various issues. Agree, disagree or ignore as you wish. >o Should more subgroups of c.s.m.apps be created? c.s.m.apps.wordproc and > c.s.m.apps.database The only other group I think might be considered is c.s.m.apps.wordproc, and that might not be the appropriate name, since some people seem to include desktop publishing in with this, which is different from word publishing. Maybe c.s.m.apps.texthacking? (that's not a serious proposal. really). I'm not convinced WP and DTP should be together, but I"m also not sure whether we could successfully separate them without a lot of cross-posting. In other words, I'm just not sure. >New Surveys: >(1) Please send me e-mail with your preferred name for what is currently > comp.sys.mac.os. Rank the following by preference: My preferences: (1) c.s.m.system (2) c.s.m.sysfold (3) c.s.m.os (NA) c.s.m.sysf >(2) Please send me e-mail on the appropriate name for c.s.m.wanted. Rank > the following by preference: My preferences: (1) c.s.m.request (2) c.s.m.wanted (3) c.s.m.help >(3) Whether c.s.m.virus should be moderated or unmoderated. I prefer unmoderated, assuming a moderated c.s.m.announce is created. If c.s.m.announce is not created, I prefer it to be moderated. >---===---===---===---===---=== >proposed text of call for votes proposal. (hint: you don't need to read this >unless you haven't seen it before or want to check on changes noted changes) >---===---===---===---===---=== >Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. Yes. >Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os Yes, with appropriate name change. >Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.apps.misc. Yes. >Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.apps.hypercard. No. >Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. Yes, with appropriate name change. >Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games. Abstain. >Proposal 7: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.comm. Yes. >Proposal 8: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.virus. Yes, either moderated or unmoderated (see above). >Proposal 9: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.announce yes. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] I don't know what's scarier: President Reagan saying he had no inkling of his aides doing anything illegal, or an ex-president who uses the word inkling.
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (02/24/90)
I like most of Chuq's proposals, with some variations, except I'd like to change one thing. In article <38902@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: |Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.apps.misc. |Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.apps.hypercard. |Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games. |Proposal 7: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.comm. I really dislike the number of hierarchical levels this is getting to be. I would propose instead: 3. comp.sys.mac.apps [for Chuq's c.s.m.apps.misc]. 4. comp.sys.mac.hypercard [as at present, i.e. don't change] 6. comp.sys.mac.games [instead of c.s.m.apps.games] 7. comp.sys.mac.comm [instead of c.s.m.apps.comm] Possibly this is less neat than Chuq's proposed scheme, but I think it could be just as easy to get lost in a tree that's too deep as one that's too broad. If you really need to have 'misc' in the name of a group designed for miscellaneous apps, you could call it comp.sys.mac.misc-apps or something like that. Incidentally: I am not ready to vote for a separate games group, as there isn't that much traffic. I'd leave it int .apps (or .misc-apps). /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (02/27/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>Should more subgroups of c.s.m.apps be created? c.s.m.apps.wordproc and >>c.s.m.apps.database Hold everything. Let's create c.s.m.appl FIRST before we start breaking it up. I've never heard of splitting up a news group before it was created. Please slow down. Let's see how c.s.m.appl works out first. >>New Surveys: >>(1) Please send me e-mail with your preferred name for what is currently >> comp.sys.mac.os. Rank the following by preference: > My preferences: > (1) c.s.m.system > (2) c.s.m.sysfold > (3) c.s.m.os > (NA) c.s.m.sysf That's strange; where is comp.os.mac on the list. The comp.os.* hierarchy is a well established hierarchy on Usenet and that's where this OS news group belongs. Please read below: | Newsgroups: news.groups | Subject: Re: Splitting hairs in (was RE: Splitting Comp.Sys.Mac again) | | peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | >In article <638@dino.cs.iastate.edu> mehl@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu writes | >>about a "comp.sys.mac.os"... | | >I suppose there might be some point to a comp.os.mac group, since there's | >a comp.os.os2 which is no less hardware-dependent than MacOS. | | You are right Peter. The name you propose "comp.os.mac" is the | correct one over the one I proposed (comp.sys.mac.os) back in early | Feburary. Currently, the Mac runs Unix (aux), OS/9, MacOS, and | perhaps Minix. A Mac user should be able to select the appropriate | OS for his needs from the comp.os.* hierarchy as he does with any | other computer systems on Usenet. We need to name the MacOS news | group comp.os.mac so it conforms with the established comp.os.* | hierarchy on Usenet. We already have comp.os.unix.aux for the Mac | now on Usenet. (... or was that comp.unix.aux?) >>Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games. >>Proposal 7: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.comm. >>Proposal 9: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.announce >>Proposal 8: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.virus. Have we gone news-group creation crazy? Let's see how proposals 1-5 work out on Usenet before we split things up anymore. Also, please remember viruses are an OS issue and virualware are special kinds of cDEV and INITs, which belong in comp.os.mac. Now if the traffic in comp.os.mac gets so heavy that we need to split it, then let's split it into comp.os.mac.virus (rather than c.s.m.virus). But let's not start a MacOS virus group just yet. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (03/01/90)
Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, and both times, it turned out to be correct. The previous times were, first, on Fidonet, with the division of an occult newsgroup into three parts, one for occult discussion, one for social discussion within the community, and one for magazine-quality articles and not for any kind of discussion. I predicted major problems with careless users, and I was correct. Within a month after the split, the "magazine" section was flooded with discussion, and even now some two years later various sysop measures have not kept discussion out of it. And of course, users don't seem to get the idea that meta-discussions flaming people for their inappropriate postings in the magazine section are also inappropriate for the magazine section. Meanwhile, the occult and social groups are nearly indistinguishable in content, and anyone interested in either one has to read both to avoid missing pertinent messages. The second time I made this prediction was with respect to USENET's alt.prose and alt.prose.d; I held that people would largely not respect the difference, and while it's not as serious a problem with only two groups as it was with Magick-net's three groups or as it will be with the proposed six to ten Macintosh groups, there is still a large proportion of the alt.prose traffic that is discussion and criticism which belongs on alt.prose.d. This is not a speculative model; it is an empirical observation. Introducing fine distinctions between closely related groups has not worked in the past, and it is unlikely to work now, especially among a user community as obviously undisciplined as comp.sys.mac users. I share with everyone else the wish that it were possible to read comp.sys.mac; but I am not so blinded by wishful thinking that I think tens of thousands of network users are going to jump up and salute a reorganization proposal and exercise eternal vigilance to preserve it. If comp.sys.mac users were this fastidious or this considerate, we wouldn't have the problem with comp.sys.mac as it is. As it is, if we pursue this course of wishful thinking, we will have just what my observations predict: eight unreadable newsgroups filled with meta-flames about inappropriate posting and wide cross-posting, to replace one newsgroup which, though voluminous and unwieldy, at least is usually not dominated by meta-discussion and off-topic messages. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained..." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
pfr654@csc.anu.oz (03/02/90)
In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: > Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. > I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, > and both times, it turned out to be correct. > (Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > -- > Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > Great point, Tim You just need someone at your site to spend about an hour per day checking through c.s.m. to see if anything relevant to their site is there. I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- ************************************************************************* Phil Ryan * No matter where Research Student * you go... ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics * Canberra, Australia *... there you are. pfr654@csc.anu.oz * phone:(61-62)494678 * Buckaroo Banzai *************************************************************************
mehl@cs.iastate.edu (Mark M Mehl) (03/03/90)
pfr654@csc.anu.oz writes: >In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) >You just need someone at your site to spend about an hour per day checking >through c.s.m.* [hierarchy] to see if anything relevant >to their site is there. >I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- I share "some" of you feelings as well. The initial proposal (#1-5) looked really good. Having all the application issues presented into one comp.sys.mac.apps group that application-oriented people could subscribe to was an excellent idea. Now things have changed. The general applications group is going to be replaced by a misc group--of all things--that everyone is going to have to waste time viewing. Moreover, we are now going to replace comp.sys.mac.apps with "lots" of little dinky groups like c.s.m.games, c.s.m.comm, c.s.m.virus, and c.s.m.weird-stuff. I seriously don't think there's enough "weird-stuff" traffic in each little area like games, comm, virus, etc. to make a special group for each of them. I would like to appeal to the Usenet voters to vote YES on any general applications group like comp.sys.mac.apps (or c.s.m.appl) and vote NO on creating any special-purpose weird-stuff applications group. I would also like to urge voters to vote NO on any kind of proposal that requires posting "application-specific" issues to a "general" misc group (such as c.s.m.misc). For example, we shouldn't have to post graphics stuff to c.s.m.misc JUST BECAUSE there isn't a special-purpose c.s.m.graphics group on Usenet. Naturally, there isn't enough graphics postings in c.s.m to justify a special graphics group; that is why we must create comp.sys.mac.apps; it's needed to takeup the slack in the application domain. And the misc group should be designed--solely--to takeup the slack in the NON-application domain. -- /\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some) <><> Internet: mehl@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu \/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
dswt@stl.stc.co.uk (Stewart Tansley) (03/07/90)
In article <1628.25ee76c8@csc.anu.oz> pfr654@csc.anu.oz writes: >In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. >> I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, >> and both times, it turned out to be correct. > >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > >> Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com > >Great point, Tim >I had thought that the reorg was a good idea, but now think not.-- >Phil Ryan I agree with Tim's point too, and have come to agree like Phil - after thinking that the proposed schema was nice, but not now. People in general will just not follow it. It *WILL* be abused - mostly unintentionally, but it will be. So what's the point? Nice schema, shame about human nature... Stewart. =========================================================================== Stewart Tansley | STC Technology Ltd | 'Be cool, or be +44 279 29531 x2763 | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK | cast out...' dswt@stl.stc.co.uk | ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dswt | Subdivisions, Rush ===========================================================================
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/08/90)
> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that > >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. The problem with Tim, I suspect, is that he's going to want to read all the groups anyway... so for him it'll just end up with increased volume. You can't solve everyone's problems that way. But for the sake of the people who will benefit, how about it? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (03/09/90)
>>In article <10522@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) writes: >>> Well, it appears that my argument is being ignored. That's too bad. >>> I've made it twice before in my net career; both times it was ignored, >>> and both times, it turned out to be correct. I agree with Tim on this. I haven't been reading news long enough to guess what might happen but human nature is bound to repeat itself. Can we vote not to reorg? There are too many News groups for me to go through already. The "n" key works well for me. (but then again I just started using Telnet and before that I had a 9600 baud connection). Is there something else we can do? I would hate to see comp.sys.mac turn into something I would no longer care or have time to read. My vote is to NOT reorg. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora SRI International mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (03/09/90)
In article <0Y22XFDxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >> >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) > >Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. >For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me >with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. Yes, of course. Again, I don't see you trying to look at the social factors involved. The problem happens when the groups have largely overlapping readerships. This is the distinction between major and minor divisions I was making. No one but programmers reads comp.sys.mac.programmer, so there's not a major overlap problem. The proposed maze of Mac groups will, however, have largely overlapping readerships, and experience proves that in these cases people will not distinguish one group from another very well when deciding where to put their messages. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "The pride of the peacock is the glory of God. The lust of the goat is the bounty of God. The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God. The nakedness of woman is the work of God." - Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (03/10/90)
In article <10720@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <0Y22XFDxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >>> >(Stuff about the way that the proposed split will just degenerate, so that >>> >we will have to check all of the new groups anyway.) >> >>Unfortunately for this theory existing comp.sys splits don't bear this out. >>For example, tossing comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.hardware leaves me >>with a worthwhile groups with an acceptable volume and signal-to-noise ratio. > >Yes, of course. Again, I don't see you trying to look at the social >factors involved. The problem happens when the groups have largely >overlapping readerships. This is the distinction between major and >minor divisions I was making. No one but programmers reads >comp.sys.mac.programmer, so there's not a major overlap problem. The >proposed maze of Mac groups will, however, have largely overlapping >readerships, and experience proves that in these cases people will not >distinguish one group from another very well when deciding where to put >their messages. I have to agree with Tim (surprise, surprise!). I just don't think there's enough differentiation between the groups to make it useful for people to have separate groups. Even now, it seems to mee a good third to a half of the mac.hardware posts are posted to c.s.m and don't even make it to c.s.mac.hardware. To put it another way, the splits are LOGICAL---but will they be used by the majority or even a large plurality of users? I don't get the feel that they will. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but from where I stand, I'm not so sure that this reorganization will be doing anything.