nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) (02/18/89)
OK, I do appreciate all the comments. Here's the scoop: On my call for votes, so far I have 104 yes votes and 7 no votes, and they're still trickling in. However, most of the no votes said they would have been yes votes had I had a discussion period first, sigh... So it seems clear that there is enough interest by the "100 more yeses than nos" standard. (Note also that very few of the 7000 Andrew users at CMU bothered to vote, though they could have -- they don't need netnews to discuss Andrew and hence mostly didn't bother voting.) However, there were also several suggestions regarding the name and status of the newsgroup. Several people suggested "comp.sys.andrew", despite the fact that Andrew is not hardware. Others suggested "comp.env.andrew", despite the fact that this would be the only node under a new "comp.env". Given the lack of a consensus on this -- and the fact that only about 10 people suggested any change at all -- I think I'd like to stick to my guns; if I called for another vote today, I'd still call for "comp.andrew". Barry Shein had a very good suggestion, however -- he suggested that comp.andrew be gatewayed with the info-andrew mailing list. This makes a lot of sense to me. He also suggested that there might be fewer objections to a new gatewayed group than to an entirely new group; I'm more skeptical of that, but we'll see... Thus, my current proposal is that we set up comp.andrew and have it gatewayed with the info-andrew mailing list. The other question is whether or not I need to conduct a second vote. My preference would be not to do so. So far, nobody has said "I think you should conduct a second vote", although one person said, "you probably ought to conduct a second vote because so many people will object if you don't." Obviously, I'd prefer not to. Does anyone else feel a strong need for a second vote? Of course, we haven't had a full two weeks of discussions yet, and I wouldn't *dream* of starting a new vote until that period was over. But perhaps people can give more of an indication of whether or not a second vote is necessary? I will certainly be inclined to interpret silence as an indication that a new vote is NOT necessary...
nagel@beaver.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (02/18/89)
In article <wXz4=by00Uk4EWXsRJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, nsb+@andrew (Nathaniel Borenstein) writes: |However, there were also several suggestions regarding the name and status of |the newsgroup. Several people suggested "comp.sys.andrew", despite the fact |that Andrew is not hardware. Others suggested "comp.env.andrew", despite the |fact that this would be the only node under a new "comp.env". Given the lack of |a consensus on this -- and the fact that only about 10 people suggested any |change at all -- I think I'd like to stick to my guns; if I called for another |vote today, I'd still call for "comp.andrew". How else do you think a new subtopic begins? Do you think that a new one springs to existance with dozens of leaves? Calling it comp.andrew is similar to comp.risks and such, but that was a historical accident of sorts. I still think comp.env.andrew is the more correct name of the two. Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Dept of Info and Comp Sci ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu | Charisma doesn't have jelly in the UUCP: {sdcsvax,ucbvax}!ucivax!nagel | middle. -- Jim Ignatowski
bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) (02/19/89)
Although the solution is not obvious the problem, as I see it, is that the news hierarchy seems to be unfit to handle software packages very well. There are a few specific sub-topics under comp (editors, compilers, databases) but where would one put any of the following: NFS/RFS/Vice, spreadsheets, desk top publishing (eg. frame or interleaf), LOCUS, CAD/CAM (autodesk, cadds) etc. Perhaps the time has come to start a comp.software tree, move compilers, graphics, editors, database under that and let that tree encompass these topics? Like I said, it's not easy or obvious. One major problem is that many of those topics have their abstract component (eg. discussing graphics algorithms) versus specific realizations (eg. packages available.) Definite taxonomical challenge, but I think it's long overdue and for one would be happy if no one rushed in with a solution but, rather, spent a few months kicking around solutions (perhaps an electronic committee? uh oh.) -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) (02/21/89)
> *Excerpts from ext.nn.news.groups: 19-Feb-89 Re: comp.andrew vote report* > *Barry Shein@Encore.COM (1002)* > Definite taxonomical challenge, but I think it's long overdue and for > one would be happy if no one rushed in with a solution but, rather, > spent a few months kicking around solutions (perhaps an electronic > committee? uh oh.) A few MONTHS???? Oh, come on, I've only been resubscribed to news.groups for two weeks now and I'm dying to be done with it... How about if we create an Andrew newsgroup in a moderately reasonable place for those of us who really want one, and those of you who really enjoy arguing over the shape of the tree can then reorganize things at your leisure? We'll happily stay wherever you put us...
bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) (02/22/89)
From: nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) >A few MONTHS???? Oh, come on, I've only been resubscribed to news.groups for >two weeks now and I'm dying to be done with it... > >How about if we create an Andrew newsgroup in a moderately reasonable >place for those of us who really want one, and those of you who really >enjoy arguing over the shape of the tree can then reorganize things at >your leisure? We'll happily stay wherever you put us... It was *NOT* my intention to imply that reshaping the tree should affect addition of groups, it wouldn't make much difference. In fact, it would be better if deserving groups *were* added during the process to ensure that the final result reflects a better reality! Nothing like working with old data to screw things up... My estimate of a few months mainly was a prediction of the time from when someone (or ones) volunteer, thru a design proposal, people arguing about it for a while on news.groups, and finally issuing warnings about the impending change and then doing it. All that won't happen in two weeks or even two months (unless someone comes up with a *very* good proposal.) In fact, at this point I'd like to see people shoot for a restructuring proposal developed electronically and then meet at the Baltimore USENIX to get final details out of the way and finally put it into action towards the end of the summer. I think you're going to see it's a bigger deal to coordinate opinion on such a thing then one might hope. Such is consensus. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||