chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/22/90)
Here's a status of how things are going in the comp.sys.mac reorganization.
First, I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful suggestions and their
interesting feedback. It's clearing up a lot of issues and making this a
solid, very useful proposal (and is also, I think, an indication on how
USENET can work when everyone works together).
A couple of overall comments: first, a couple of people objected to my quick
call for a survey on c.s.m.appl vs. c.s.m.apps. To clear up any confusion,
that was not an attempt to shut off discussion, but to try to get a clear
feeling on what people's preferences were while trying to avoid having the
'vote' being done in news.groups. When I call for an informal survey like
that, I want people to continue discussion the issue in news.groups as they
feel appropriate -- all I'm trying to do is keep from flooding the
discussion in news.groups with 50 'I like foo!' messages that'll cause some
people to drop out of the discussion, and also to get the votes into e-mail
where it's easier for me to make sure I got them all and didn't count
duplicates. I want the discussion and the surveys to continue in parallel,
not one to replace the other.
Also, I think it's now obvious that my original "100 requests for a group"
idea is a hopelessly large number. The most common request is for
c.s.m.virus (or some variation of the name) and that's well under 10 total.
So I'm tossing out the minimum numbers and trying a new strategy: if it's a
request for a specific group to be created (like c.s.m.virus) and it seems
to have some support, I'll add it to the proposal and let it be voted in or
out by the general readership, as long as it's reasonably named, within the
scope of what we're doing (i.e. c.s.m.women or c.s.m.aquaria would be very
unlikely to be accepted). If it's something that requires major tweaking of
the structure of the proposal (for instance, the appl vs. apps question)
I'll throw it open to a survey and use that as feedback for which form is
preferred. (Basically, what I want to avoid doing is pre-censoring the
proposal by not allowing the groups I specifically don't like on, whild
still keeping enough control to keep out obviously misnamed or inappropriate
groups -- which is also why these status reports are coming out on a regular
basis. If you see a decision that you think is inappropriate, please let me
know and we can talk about it.)
New issues:
From what I can tell, there are two outstanding issues that I haven't seen
as being fully resolved. I'd like to throw them open to further discussion
and eventually to a straw poll (I won't call it for a few more days, though,
please don't send votes yet)
(1) whether or not to call it c.s.m.os -- other group names suggested are
c.s.m.system or c.s.m.sysf. Of the three, I think I prefer c.s.m.system,
frankly, after thinking about it. sysf is short, but I don't think it's
going to be clear to newer users. c.s.m.os is acceptable, but the
arguments that the MacOS is a different beast and that stuff in the
System folder is really a superset of what an 'os' is are rather
persuasive. I'd like to see more discussion on this one.
(2) whether or not to call it c.s.m.wanted -- c.s.m.help and c.s.m.request.
I personally prefer either .wanted or .request, because I think using
.help would change the charter somewhat. c.s.m.wanted would be closer to
the standards of usenet naming (comp.sources.wanted, et al), but perhaps
.request is more appropriate. I prefer c.s.m.wanted at this time.
Other Business:
There was one request for comp.os.mac instead of comp.mac.os. I've rejected
it for a couple of reasons: one is the question whether it ought to be
c.s.m.system, and another is that I think it should continue to be inside
c.s.m somewhere (reason: when you choose a name, you should choose its place
in the name space based on two things: what's the most important aspects of
the name and where is the reader most likely to look for it. In this case, I
think since we have such a strong hierarchy of mac groups already it's
fairly obvious that a reader is going to expect all of the mac groups inside
that hierarchy, and if it doesn't exist there is likely to assume it doesn't
exist and use one of the existing mac groups. I feel that c.os.mac would
create confusion and add to inappropriate postings elsewhere in the
hierarchy, and there would probably be a high percentage of cross-postings
between it and c.s.m.misc).
Survey status:
Current vote counts on the two surveys I'm running. These are not final
totals, so feel free to vote if you haven't:
Whether or not to allow variation from the guidelines for the 'multiple
votes in a single proposal' for the reorganization: Yes, 100, no, 2. (pretty
obviously this proposal will be used for the call for votes when we get
there, rather than a series of separate vote calls).
Whether to use comp.sys.mac.apps or comp.sys.mac.appl: apps 9, appl 6.
---===---===---===---===---===
new changes from call for discussion proposal:
---===---===---===---===---===
(d) add group c.s.m.announce (moderated, moderator still to be named).
designed to be a low-volume group for posting of announcements and
other information (virus alerts, (maybe?) product announcements,
and other things of interest to the mac community.
(e) add group c.s.m.virus. There's been some discussion of whether it should
be moderated or unmoderated and exactly what the name should be. As of
now, I'm marking it unmoderated, since if there is a moderated announce
group the important announcements would go there and new viruses and
otehr discussion could go on here without the turnaround delays
associated with moderation (between this and c.s.m.announce, the best of
both worlds). I've chosen c.s.m.virus over other names because it's more
in line with the USENET naming standards (specifically, trying to avoid
contractions and using a singular form instead of a plural where
possible).
(f) change proposal to use 'comp.sys.mac.apps' instead of
'comp.sys.mac.appl' -- early results in the survey show a preference for
the new name (nine to six), and enough people have commented on the
confusion between 'appl' and 'apple' that I think the switch is a good
idea in any case. Unless there is a strong swing back to appl in the
survey, it'll be apps.
---===---===---===---===---===
previous changes from call for discussion proposal:
---===---===---===---===---===
(a) change group name comp.sys.mac.appl to comp.sys.mac.appl.misc. This is
a sub-hierarchy, and we need to avoid what we're trying to fix with the
c.s.m -> c.s.m.misc rename.
(b) add group c.s.m.appl.games for discussion of macintosh games.
(c) add group c.s.m.appl.comm for discussion of communication issues:
terminal emulators (white night, microphone, etc), bbs software (red
ryder host) and communication/networking (appleshare, tops, etc).
---===---===---===---===---===
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.
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking]
Rumour has it that Larry Wall, author of RN, is a finalist in the race for
the Nobel Peace Prize for his invention of the kill file.rd_francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (02/23/90)
In article <38851@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: [Proposal for reorganization of comp.sys.mac] I agree strongly with Chuq's statement that no individual should allow his/her own preferences to dictate which groups should *not* be offered up *in the proposal*. Naturally, we can all vote our minds, and state our opinions in advance, but if some significant number of people support a proposal, it should be included in the proposal. Now, about that stating of opinions in advance, unless otherwise noted, I have no qualms about any of the groups listed before, and support their eventual creation. >Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc.... >Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os.... As stated in Chuq's message, he is now leaning towards c.s.m.system. I favor this, as it would be the clearest option I can think of to the greatest number of people. >Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.apps.misc..... >Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.apps.hypercard. I suspect this one will fail, due to a large number of indifferent people, myself included. >Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted.... >Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games.... >Proposal 7: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.comm.... >Proposal 8: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.virus.... Perhaps I am wrong about this, but what is the basic criteria for spin-off newsgroups? My impression has been a lot of existing traffic is needed. Three existing newsgroups cover the territory of 3 of the above (rec.games.misc, comp.protocol.appletalk, comp.virus). Even though i might be tempted to vote for one or more of these myself, I feel that this information should be pointed out to everyone. None of these are subjects that I have seen taking up considerable amounts of bandwidth in c.s.m so far (by comparison with various and sundry general discussions, problems with various applications, and talks about the system software. If we were to issue this proposal one request at a time (thank goodness we won't be, but for the sake of argument...) I guess my question is would there be an incentive to get these groups created. >Proposal 9: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.announce.... To expand on a theme in my paragraph above, I strongly suggest that when we vote, we at least try to look at each facet of the proposal as if it were completely independent of the rest. Don't just send in a blanket "yes" vote because you don't feel like typing in the extra characters to vote "abstain" on one part. The last thing anyone wants is a situation where people are saying "Well, if that proposal had been made through *normal* channels, that newsgroup would *never* have been created!" I would imagine that there are other sub-hierarchies on the net that could stand the sort of re-organization we are after, and I suspect that our efforts here may wind up being pointed to in the future as a reason to (or not to) try to do things the way we are. -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/23/90)
rd_francis@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >>Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.apps.hypercard. >I suspect this one will fail, due to a large number of indifferent >people, myself included. I tend to agree -- but I don't think it's my place to make the final decision. I plan on posting my 'recommended' votes as a separate article when I do the call for votes, but I don't want to go too far pushing whatever hidden agenda I might have, if I in fact have one. >Perhaps I am wrong about this, but what is the basic criteria for >spin-off newsgroups? My impression has been a lot of existing traffic >is needed. That's actually an old USENET 'requirement' that's been disproven time and time again (rec.radio.shortwave being the latest example). A lot of people, myself included, thought it was true for a long time. The facts don't back it up. >Three existing newsgroups cover the territory of 3 of the >above (rec.games.misc, comp.protocol.appletalk, comp.virus). The question at hand is whether we want to create groups specifically for the mac subset of the groups in question. The answer is a definite 'maybe'. There is some minor overlap between comp.protocol.appletalk and c.s.m.apps.comm, but the primary focus of the latter is things like Red Ryder, Microphone, BBSes and the like. It could also be used for CL/1 and the various networking stuff that may or may not be appletalk related, but I don't see a lot of overlap. As far as games and virus, I personally would prefer leaving the messages in comp.virus, but I don't feel it's my place to make that decision -- I'm leaving it in the hands of the voters. As to games, rec.games.misc is large and noisy enough that I think a mac-specific game group is a reasonable idea, with the added advantage of pulling the game stuff out of c.s.m that probably should have been in rec.games.misc in the first place but isn't because the posters are reading the mac groups and not the games groups. >To expand on a theme in my paragraph above, I strongly suggest that >when we vote, we at least try to look at each facet of the proposal as >if it were completely independent of the rest. Don't just send in a >blanket "yes" vote because you don't feel like typing in the extra >characters to vote "abstain" on one part. I couldn't agree more. The whole point of this multi-vote structure is to save time and hassle in getting things fixed, not to rubberstamp the proposal. I'll be disappointed if *everything* on the proposal succeeds, for the simple fact that I hope I'm putting things on the proposal that are worth a general vote on but aren't necessarily things people want implemented (would I call a vote on c.s.m.virus if it weren't part of a larger vote? No. what about games? Maybe, probably not. But in the larger context, it's worth giving people a chance to make the decision rather than choosing for them by action or inaction). -- 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.
austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin H. Ziegler, III) (02/25/90)
>>>>> On 22 Feb 90 01:19:47 GMT, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) said: Disclaimer: I do not own a Mac...nor would I want to. Chuq> Proposal 6: Creation of group comp.sys.mac.apps.games. A group for the Chuq> discussion of macintosh-based computer games. NO! NO! and again NO! That would deprive non-Mac game-owners of the input from Mac players of games that span systems. Further, I think it would be a highly underused group, particularly based on the volume of rec.games.misc (which, IMHO, needs to be re-done for computer games...maybe something like rec.comp.games, but that is another subject.) Due to the fact that most games are ported to many computers, I think that a computer-specific games group is not a good idea at all. (I'm not sure that games fit under apps anyway...rec yes, applications no--show me a game that helps you turn in a thesis paper... (-8 ) just my two power-pellets, austin -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The surgeon general of the United States of America has determined that | | reading USENET turns your brain to jelly, leaving nothing to claim or to | | disclaim. +--------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----------+ Austin Ziegler austin@bucsf.bu.edu or austin@buengf.bu.edu | | 700 Commonwealth Box 2094, Boston, Massachusetts 02215 BUENG '93 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+