rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (02/12/89)
I think that calling this group "comp.andrew" probably isn't a good idea, just because it introduces a new hierarchy (setting a bad precedent). Would "comp.protocols.andrew", perhaps, be more appropriate? What types of issues are being discussed on the existing mailing lists? By the way, I do think a new vote will have to be taken (whether it "should" or not, there will be too much controvery if it isn't). Anton +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "UNIX: blecch." | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
nagel@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (02/13/89)
In article <1794@cps3xx.UUCP>, rang@cpsin3 (Anton Rang) writes: |I think that calling this group "comp.andrew" probably isn't a good |idea, just because it introduces a new hierarchy (setting a bad |precedent). Would "comp.protocols.andrew", perhaps, be more |appropriate? What types of issues are being discussed on the existing |mailing lists? From what I've seen so far, it probably isn't just a protocol subject. But you are correct that Andrew does not belong in a second level position in the hierarchy. I feel it is OK to allow a new second level name if necessary, though. After looking through the 40 different second-level names, it appears that the one that Andrew (and possibly other future topics, such as the Arcadia project) could not fit comfortably under any of them. There needs to be a comp.environment or comp.env second level name to root these topics. Subject under comp.env would discuss programming environment issues, etc. The closest existing second level name for this is comp.cog-eng, but I think that is sufficiently different that clumping programming environment topics in there would confuse most people. Therefore, I suggest the name 'comp.env.andrew' as the proper name for this new group should it be created. Later, other environment discussions will fill out the third level. Please correct me if Andrew should not be considered a programming environment. If it is more of an OS environment, then perhaps it should go under comp.os. 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