guido@boring.UUCP (10/19/85)
I received notice that the net.bureaucrats wanted net.internat to be removed, go moderated or be restricted to Europe. Maybe the proper procedures haven't been followed, but the need for such a group is obvious. Restricting it to Europe seems contradictory to its purpose and smells of ostrich-policy. Europe is still the second-largest market for many US-based hardware and software vendors! It seems that a group like this would have a fairly serious audience, so I don't see why the group should start off as a moderated group. If traffic volume becomes a problem we can *then* go moderated, but I don't believe this will be necessary. Consider this article as a YES vote for net.internat. Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)
dc@datlog.UUCP ( David Crone ) (10/20/85)
In article <6659@boring.UUCP> guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum) writes: >I received notice that the net.bureaucrats wanted net.internat to be removed... I entirely agree with Guido and all other like minded people who wish to see net.internat kept up AS A NET newsgroup not just a European group. OK some policy rules about starting a group may have been misunderstood or not carried out by Mike Banahan but it is absolutely vital that this discussion be open to all (including those American people :-) ) . Dave (19th Nervous Breakdown) Crone
apm@iclbra.UUCP (Andy Merritt) (10/21/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Surely net.internat is exactly the sort of newsgroup USENET needs and is
suitable for; all the interested parties (well, those on the net anyway) can
put their views on the internationalisation issue at first hand, and those
who might have not even considered that there were any problems let alone
what they were may have their eyes opened.
This should be a relatively high content group; at least it is related
to computing, would be positively making use of the wide geographical area
covered by the net and would make a change from the endless discussions on
whether one's heritage has been lost because a soft drink formula has changed.
This is a YES vote for net.internat.
/^^^\
( o o )
--w---U---w-- UUCP: ...!ukc!stc!iclbra!apm
"Wot, no graphix?" MAIL: Andrew Merritt, ICL, Lovelace Rd, Bracknell, Berksken@rochester.UUCP (and Vicki Herrieschopper) (10/21/85)
I find the material in this group interesting. I don't see why only
Europe should get this group. I vote to keep net.internat.
Ken
--
UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa
USnail: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Voice: Ken!radzy@calma.uucp (Tim Radzykewycz) (10/21/85)
I feel that net.internat is a reasonable group to have. The discussions there have not yet solved "the problem of language and computers", but at the very least, it does promote some amount of awareness of what is involved in producing a reasonable multi-lingual computer system, whether it be UN*X or some other beast. This is a "yes" vote for net.internat. PS I hope this isn't too late. I just subscribed to net.news.group recently. -- Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz calma!radzy@ucbvax.ARPA ucbvax!calma!radzy
andrew@stc.UUCP (10/22/85)
I also think this issue MUCH too important to be hidden under the
carpet by our insular colleagues across the pond.
The rest of the world does not speak American, let alone English. The
issues are much wider than simple consideration in terms of *ix, they
are of direct relevence to anyone wishing to operate computers within
an international framework. This is not to imply that the issue is not
suitable for discussion in terms of *ix, after all *ix is the operating
system which travels best at present, and any solutions found here will
eventually wend their way into other o/s environments.
Come on chaps, this marvelous network *should* be emphasising the
global village, ( for information, not wanted ads :-) ). Please
consider this another YES vote, since those made outwith the confines
of the net seem to be discounted.
--
Regards,
Andrew Macpherson. <andrew@stc.UUCP>
{aivru,creed,datlog,iclbra,iclkid,idec,inset,root44,stl,ukc}!stc!andrewpiet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (10/22/85)
<> Although I agree that this newsgroup has in no way been set up in the proper way a new newsgroup should be set up on USENET/EUNET, I think - given the reactions I've seen sofar - this newsgroup should *not* be removed and should *not* be a EUNET-only newsgroup. After all internationalization (-sation) *is* a technical issue of worldwide, and thus net-wide interest. And don't forget that USENET is not identical with the USA, but also covers e.g. Australia, Japan, Korea etc. Those countries cannot receive eunet newsgroups. Maybe the name chosen was a bit too general; in that case it should just be renamed (net.unix-intl?). And if there's really (and amazingly) not a single bit of interest in this newsgroup in the US, spreading over the US can always be inhibited in a very early stage, without affecting the forwarding to the other countries mentioned and without the newsgroup having to be removed. -- Piet Beertema, CWI, Amsterdam (piet@mcvax.UUCP)
johnl@ima.UUCP (10/23/85)
I agree. The sloppy manner of net.internat's creation was unfortunate,
but there is a lot of interesting traffic there for both sides of the
Atlantic (and the Pacific, for that matter.)
Count this as another vote to make net.internat "official."
By the way, renaming it to net.unix.internat would be a mistake -- the
bulk of the postings are about character sets and internationalization
in general and not not in the least Unix specific.
John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400
{ decvax!cca | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA
The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken
into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.ncx@cheviot.uucp (Lindsay F. Marshall) (10/23/85)
For the first time we have a group created to fulfill a real need and the netlords decide we cant have it!! SO there wasnt much discussion on the net (I actually saw more discussion on net.internat than I have for any of the other ludicrous and irrelevant newsgroups that have been created recently) so what - I bet there were more people at the Copenhagen meeting than there were votes for net.auto.tech or some such thing. Why waste money on transmitting votes about when you can arrange it better in person????? net.internat fills a critical need in the os world at this time and its about time that the US woke up to the fact there are other people and cultures out there. I think disguising bigotry by flaming about voting procedures is utterly despicable. As I said above we have to put up with ridiculous newsgroups so I dont see why the US shouldnt put up with something useful for a change. Yes, the net does seem to be full of flamers and cranks with very little technical content, but it is noticeable that there are very few (if any) flames from outside the US part of the net - the people in the real world out here cant afford the comms charges and try and keep it technical. So lets make a choice NOW - either we have a sensible net (and net.internat is certainly sensible) or we just forget it. I shall be ignoring the rmgroup for net.internat - I hope that most people will do the same. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lindsay F. Marshall, Computing Lab., U of Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, UK ARPA : lindsay%cheviot.newcastle.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa JANET : lindsay@uk.ac.newcastle.cheviot UUCP : <UK>!ukc!cheviot!lindsay -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/23/85)
Folks, let me clear something up. I didn't suggest that "net.internat"
was tackling problems that should be confined to a European distribution.
What I actually suggested was that the group start out as something
like a mailing list or regional distribution (like eunet) until
it established a consistent volume of postings.
Net.internat should not have been created.
Now I'm not trying to say it isn't a "worthy" topic (whatever that
means in a net which ranks net.flame, net.jokes, net.politics, and
net.abortion as top newsgroups), but it was created without a
previously shown volume of postings *and* there were questions raised
about its name which were never addressed or answered.
If we allow groups to just pop up because some group thinks it is a
nifty idea and they've got a great name for it, we'll soon be flooded
with groups. All will be worthwhile to some group of special
interests, but that DOES NOT mean that they are especially appropriate
for a newsgroup. That's why we have the procedure that we do -- to
ensure that the group belongs as a netwide group, and to be sure that
the naming is appropriate.
My original suggestion to Pete was that the group start as a mailing
list. That way, you could also pick up Arpa contributors and get a
broader base for input. If there is enough interest and a consistent
volume of submission, then let's go with either a "mod" or "net" group
for it. I'm not trying to advocate any "eunet ghetto."
I'm the only one who feels this way. I'm just one of the more vocal
ones who happens to be acting on it. See my article in net.announce
for more detail.
--
Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafsteven@boring.UUCP (10/23/85)
I seem to remember in the past that decisions about the net have been made at Usenix conferences, and then announced to the net. So why the fuss now that non-Americans have done the same thing? Isn't it time to stop regarding the net as an American net with other people listening in, and start treating it as a World net that we all share? This is another vote for net.internat with world distribution. Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (10/23/85)
Since Gene is not doing it, I'd like to say how I interpreted his message. First, I don't think there was ever a question about the existance of a newsgroup to discuss problems relating to internalionalizing unix. I believe the objections were purely administrative. The first objection was that it wasn't created in the proper manner. There is a point to this. If we complain about bogus groups appearing from nowhere, we have to oppose ALL undiscussed groups, despite their obvious technical merit. Once you start making exceptions because it's "obviously" a good thing, you blur the distinction of bad or good. If it is really good (and I think it is) it can stand the inspection. The second objection was the name. Personally, I don't like net.internat. We are moving towards more meaningful names and this isn't. net.unix.internat[ional] would be more meaningful to me. However, it's not the only alternative. This is one of the things that would have been discussed in the normal creation of the group. The third question was would it be more appropriate as a moderated group. I would love to have it moderated, but I doubt if we can find anyone to do it. In my opinion there are not a lot of new ideas in it(yet). The first 50 articles can be summarized as the character set is inadequate, the date format is inadequate and the keyboard layout is not good. Most of the rest are the "Yeah, I agree" variety. (By the way, net.unix and unix-wizards also suffer from this problem. It is common). I had already unsubscribed because I was tired of reading that a 7 bit character was inadequate for the 20th time. If it were moderated, I'd always read it. As it stands, I really don't have the time. ---rick
stephen@dcl-cs.UUCP (Stephen J. Muir) (10/24/85)
I would like to add my YES vote too. I strongly feel this newsgroup should be kept. The reasons have already been stated by other people so I won't repeat them. -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen DARPA: stephen%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: stephen@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 Ext. 4599 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, UK. Project:Alvey ECLIPSE Distribution | LA1 4YR
dik@zuring.UUCP (10/24/85)
Another vote: Yes, let's have net.internat on a world-wide basis.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
UUCP: {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!dikrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/24/85)
> I also think this issue MUCH too important to be hidden under the > carpet by our insular colleagues across the pond. Incredible, that this British poster can't distinguish established etiquette from parochialism. We Americans wrong them when we invoke the stereotype which portrays them as always acting within proper procedure. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...At last it's the real thing...or close enough to pretend.
simon@mcvax.UUCP (Simon Kenyon) (10/24/85)
talking about English Andrew, thought you might see the funny side of this! the word OUTWITH is Scottish. It does not exist in the English language. Having lived in Scotland and watched an American lady struggling to understand that word only goes to prove the point that this newsgroup is badly needed. -- simon kenyon simon@mcvax
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/24/85)
> Since Gene is not doing it, I'd like to say how I interpreted his message. > > I believe the objections were purely administrative. > Of course, the problem is that there is a big argument between the Europeans and the Domestic net wizards on how groups should be founded. Perhaps, this is one of the needs for net.internat anyway. (You're right, the name sucks, I keep misreading it as internet). -Ron
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/24/85)
> I also think this issue MUCH too important to be hidden under the > carpet by our insular colleagues across the pond. This is a really insulting and bigoted remark (deliberately so, in all prob- ability). I wasn't going to post any more on this, but after reading about 8 articles with this tone, I figured I would like to clarify what is going on. I will repeat again, for those who only read the first line of Spaf's posting and then posted their opinions: the CONTENT of net.internat is NOT what is objected to, it is the method of creation. It sets a very bad precedent, REGARDLESS of how valuable the information in the group is (and I do NOT dispute that). The problem is that someone created a netwide group with no discussion among the net and no demonstrated need. If one wants to start a new topic of discussion, fine; start it in an existing group. If the topic proves to generate enough traffic to warrant it, THEN suggest forming a new newsgroup. It is not necessary to start a new newsgroup every time a new topic comes up for discussion. Now that net.internat has been removed, those who wish to discuss the topics raised there should continue the discussion in another group. If the discussion continues to flourish, THEN suggest a new newsgroup. The whole point of the rules Spaf posted is that the criteria for creating a new newsgroup is based solely on amount of traffic for that topic, NOT on how potentially interesting or valuable the topic might be. There is NOTHING to stop ANYONE from starting a new discussion; the procedures only need to be followed for new GROUPS. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
dave@uwvax.UUCP (Dave Cohrs) (10/25/85)
As long as we're trying to make this an approved-by-spaf group, here's
another vote for net.internat (but can't we change the name?).
--
Dave Cohrs
(608) 262-1204
...!{harvard,ihnp4,seismo,topaz}!uwvax!dave
dave@wisc-romano.arpaarnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (10/25/85)
In article <447@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >(You're right, the name sucks, I keep misreading it as internet). > >-Ron I do, too. How about using or "net.intnl", since "intnl" is a listed abbreviation for "international" in the dictionary? (So is "intl", but that looks a bit too much like "intel" to me.) When someone starts collecting votes on this one, they'll get mine. Ken
christer@kuling.UUCP (Christer Johansson) (10/25/85)
In article <852@mcvax.UUCP> of Wed, 23-Oct-85 05:12:48 GMT piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: > >Maybe the name chosen was a bit too general; in that case it should just be >renamed (net.unix-intl?). > world.internat would describe the contents of the group better than world.unix-intl. The discussions in the group have not been restricted to internationalization of unix only, but to internationalization of computers in general. Maybee it should be named world.comp-intl or world.computers.international I vote YES for keeping the group, with any world.* name! -- SMail: Christer Johansson EMail: {seismo,seismo!mcvax}!enea!kuling!christer OR Sernandersv. 9:136 christer@kuling.UUCP S-752 63 Uppsala Phone: Int. +46 - 18 46 31 54 SWEDEN Nat. 018 - 46 31 54
simsong@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Simson Garfinkel) (10/25/85)
I vote yes for net.internat. I wish that the groups creation had originally followed standard usenet procedures.
drg@rlvd.UUCP (Duncan Gibson) (10/25/85)
/* previously posted to eunet - the European domain of Usenet */ I think that all of these people casting votes for net.internat in eunet.followup are casting into an abyss. The news gurus can't get eunet.* [ I agree with Lindsay about the request for an eunet feed in California! ] so they are never going to see what is wanted. I would like to see net.internat, and you are going to be bored by reading my vote again in net.news.group. Let's stand up in the *right* place to be counted. -- UUCP: ..!ukc!rlvd![rlvc!]drg ARPA: drg%rl.vc@ucl.cs JANET: drg@rl.vc
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (10/25/85)
In article <471@cheviot.uucp> ncx@cheviot.UUCP (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes: >... I think disguising >bigotry by flaming about voting procedures is utterly despicable. >...Yes, the >net does seem to be full of flamers and cranks with very little >technical content, but it is noticeable that there are very few (if any) >flames from outside the US part of the net - the people in the *REAL* >world out here cant afford the comms charges and try and keep it >technical. [emphasis mine on the world "real" above] Hmm, who is demonstrating bigotry? So those of us in the US aren't part of the real world. Right. Be careful using that word "bigot," especially if your problem is simply one of not understanding or not agreeing with the other fellow's opinion. -- Gene "sometime in 1986" Spafford The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (10/25/85)
In article <513@seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: > >The first objection was that it wasn't created in the proper manner. Other news groups have been created as the result of some conference or other. Why can it apparently only be US conferences/meetings? Or can only world groups be created in the US? >The second objection was the name. Personally, I don't like net.internat. >We are moving towards more meaningful names and this isn't. >net.unix.internat[ional] would be more meaningful to me. The name should most definitely NOT be net.unix.internat, or something like that. These problems cover a much wider range than just unix. Unless of course you believe that unix is everything. :-) >The third question was would it be more appropriate as a moderated group. Moderated?! How can you discuss moderating a very reasonable group and at the same time allow all the junk that's on the net to go un-moderated? I'm not interested in a dinette set in New Jersey (whatever a dinette set is). :-) Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm UUCP: {decvax,philabs,seismo}!mcvax!enea!erix!robert N.B. No lovely graphics in this signature!
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (10/25/85)
The current attitude of some people in the USA regarding net.internat is, as is often the case, arrogant and dismissive. Their position speaks eloquently of the need to propagate the idea (which they so often blithely ignore) that the good ole US of A is *not* the World. net.internat it *should* be. Kay.-- rmgroup 'em till they glow... ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/26/85)
>This is a "yes" vote for net.internat. > >PS I hope this isn't too late. I just subscribed to net.news.group >recently. >Tim (radzy) Radzykewycz ditto. charli
db@cbosgd.UUCP (J. Muir) (10/26/85)
Why don't y'all just follow the earlier suggestion and keep net.internat (perhaps with a different name)? The energy expended flaming one another over this would be better used in hammering out an appropriate name for the group. I have yet to see any serious objections to the *content* of net.internat, only the *protocol* by which it was created. As a gesture of international diplomacy, I suggest the original creator of net.internat be given the (perhaps dubious) honor of recreating it (after removal if a name change is involved). How 'bout it?
gnu@l5.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/26/85)
I'd like to propose a new newsgroup called "net.internat". It was discussed by a large number of Usenet participants at a European Unix Users Group conference and consensus was reached that a net-wide newsgroup was needed. This consensus has been further shown by postings in [the illegal immoral] net.internat and in net.news.group by folks who were not able to attend the conference. I don't recall seeing a single poster who thought the group should not exist. Consensus on the name is less widespread, with various factions advocating longer or shorter names, subgroup of net.unix or independent newsgroup. The name "net.internat" seems to be a reasonable compromise and acceptable to enough people. Can the appropriate wizards wave the appropriate wands and create a newsgroup? Thank you.
kay@warwick.UUCP (Kay Dekker) (10/26/85)
In article <471@cheviot.uucp> ncx@cheviot.UUCP (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes: >.... I shall >be ignoring the rmgroup for net.internat - I hope that most people will >do the same. Ditto. Kay. -- "The only good thing that I can find to say about the idea of colonies in space is that America could, at last, have a world to herself." -- Elisabeth Zyne ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!flame!kay
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (10/26/85)
a) Previous traffic as a justification for new newsgroup:
I subscribed to net.internat only because rn offered it as a new newsgroup.
I was totally unaware of such discussions elsewhere. When a new group
appears, I usually subscribe to it, read a few articles, and THEN decide if
it's worth the trouble.
b) restricting net.internat to Europe.
As far as ARBITRARILY restricting net.international to Europe, I am
against it. Quite a few North Americans have another language that
English as their mother tongue? Spanish is an obvious example, and I am
on leave from a francophone university in a part of North-America where
french is an official language, and fighting Unix to make it ingest
french is a daily event...
c) But who should decide?
No newsgroup should be forced upon any site, not even the backbone
sites. If somebody upstreams decides not to carry net.bizarre and
net.international, fine. If the local site administrator really wants
them, then he should get the feed from somewhere else.
As much as I would like to keep net.international and get a
mod.sources.mac, I guess the decision is not mine to take as a user,
because it is not my money that is being spent. Administrators should
administrate...
d) a (naive and flamable) comment...
In this era of digital long-haul networks, I find it strange that
backbone sites who are able to justify such enormous amounts of money
are not able to find more cost-efficient ways to transfer the bulk of data
--
Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.
CSNet: lamy%utai@toronto.csnet
UseNet: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
CDN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)keld@diku.UUCP (Keld J|rn Simonsen) (10/27/85)
<> Please bear in mind that the net.internat was created as a decision on a BOF on international UNIX at the EUUG conference in Copenhagen and that the newsgroup was intended for further work of this group, also formalised as the EUUG + /usr/group/UK standardisation committee on international UNIX. The newsgroup should be UNIX only. I originally proposed net.intnl as the name. I would rather propose the name net.unix-intnl or net.unix.intnl now. There are various questionaires underway. Respond to them, not me. Keld Simonsen EUUG Executive Committee EUUG representative in International UNIX standardisation committee
jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) (10/27/85)
[EUUG strikes - more] [A new newsgroup has been created] One of a number of similar postings states: > Having seen a posting from Europe stating that this group was, > in fact, recommended at a meeting of EUUG, the European equivalent of > Usenix, and created on that basis, ... Some postings replace the word "recommended" with "mandated". From the above, and other postings in this group, I gather that there was some *formal* action taken at/by EUUG. I assume there is a corresponding document. Could someone please *post* this document to the net so all us poor ignorant "insular other-side-of-the-pond" readers of net news know *exactly* what was "mandated"? I have seen a lot of smoke on this issue, but have yet to see the fire. -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: ...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: uwmacc!uwmcsd1!jgd@rsch.wisc.edu -- -- John G Dobnick Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee UUCP: ...ihnp4!uwmcsd1!jgd INTERNET: uwmacc!uwmcsd1!jgd@rsch.wisc.edu
fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) (10/27/85)
Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl I'd suggest that it be moderated (i.e. mod.unix.intnl) for the same reasons that Rick Adams cited, but I'd probably get flamed for saying that. Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU
sommar@enea.UUCP (Erland Sommarskog) (10/28/85)
I would also like to give my vote for net.internat. The background for the conference are some of the most important development in the computer business, namely a betetr man-machine communication. Of course net.internat shall not be restricted to Europe. Such ideas belongs to net.bizzare!
gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) (10/28/85)
In article <447@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >Of course, the problem is that there is a big argument between the Europeans >and the Domestic net wizards on how groups should be founded. Perhaps, this ^^^^^^^^ >is one of the needs for net.internat anyway. Enough said. -- George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh Phone: +44 31-667 1081 x2730 UUCP: <UK>!ukc!cstvax!gdmr JANET: gdmr@UK.AC.ed.cstvax
lear@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) (10/28/85)
It appears (from what I've seen) that net.internat will be recreated in one
form or another relatively shortly. It seems to me that it probably should
not have been removed in the first place but that is my personal opinion
and the deed is done. However, to avoid such incidents in the future,
instead of just blindly rmgrouping every group that you haven't read about
in net.news.group, how about making a request for votes and carry out the
masses' wishes. I realize that it means that an illegal group would live
for an extra week but it would certainly allow groups like net.internat to
live while they are being discussed. One could also view the content to
help form an opinion.
Comments, arguments, or flames?
eliot lear
--
The opinions expressed above reflect no one's opinion save my own and are
so unique, they should be copyrighted!
[lear@topaz.rutgers.edu]
[{allegra,seismo}!topaz!lear]woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (10/28/85)
> For the first time we have a group created to fulfill a real need and > the netlords decide we cant have it!! The problem is, the only need demonstrated for the group was shown AFTER the group was created improperly. The rules for newsgroup creation CLEARLY state that the FIRST thing that must happen is sufficient volume of postings must appear in other groups to justify creation of a new group. If they don't, then there's no need for the group. There is nothing to stop you from discussing a new topic in an existing group. IF the topic generates a lot of traffic, THEN propose a new group. > I bet there were more people at the > Copenhagen meeting than there were votes for net.auto.tech or some such thing. Why waste money on transmitting votes about when you can arrange Maybe so. net.auto.tech was not created because of the votes for it. It was created because there was a demonstrated volume of postings in net.auto to justify a new group. > net.internat fills a critical need in the os > world at this time and its about time that the US woke up to the fact > there are other people and cultures out there. For the 101st time, the content of the group is not why it was removed. I think that SHOULD be clear to anyone who can read by this time. > I think disguising > bigotry by flaming about voting procedures is utterly despicable. Then why are YOU doing it?? Read your last two sentences. I think YOU are the bigot. Read what you're saying. "It's the Americans fault, we Europeans are better than that, we would NEVER stoop to such a low level". You are using accusations of bigotry as a somkescreen to hide the fact that your pet group was created improperly. THE CONTENT OF THE GROUP IS NOT AT ISSUE. Nor is who created it. The objection to it is SOLELY based on HOW it was created. > As I > said above we have to put up with ridiculous newsgroups so I dont see > why the US shouldnt put up with something useful for a change. The US is perfectly willing to "put up with", and probably even (gasp!) participate in and benefit from, discussions on this topic, provided that the group is created properly. The reason that we HAVE the rules for creating groups are to cut down growth of traffic and to PREVENT discussing the merits of a particular topic and confine new group discussions to whether the group is NEEDED, as opposed to whether we should discuss the topic. > Yes, the > net does seem to be full of flamers and cranks with very little > technical content, but it is noticeable that there are very few (if any) > flames from outside the US part of the net - the people in the real > world out here cant afford the comms charges and try and keep it > technical. Another VERY thinly-veiled bigoted remark. If that doesn't qualify as "garbage", then what does? And, it came from Europe! :-) :-) > So lets make a choice NOW - either we have a sensible net > (and net.internat is certainly sensible) or we just forget it. I agree. I vote for a sensible net, which means no random creation of even USEFUL newsgroups, until a demonstrated need for the group has been established. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) (10/29/85)
In article <10818@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl Definitely not, UNIX isn't the whole world (most of it maybe, but not all of it :-)). Maybe net.internat is a bad name but net.intnl sounds more like net.internal. Why not net.international? Robert Virding @ L M Ericsson, Stockholm UUCP: {decvax,philabs,seismo}!mcvax!enea!erix!robert
nick@inset.UUCP (Nick Stoughton) (10/29/85)
In article <10818@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.BERKELEY.EDU (Erik E. &) writes: >Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl > Whilst (and unfortunately) it may be true that UNIX will have a big influence on the discussions on this newsgroup, it should not ne bounded to just discussions on internationalising that Operating System. Naming it net.unix.intnl may scare off otherwise valuable contributions merely because they are not about UNIX. I think the name should stay! -------- Nick Stoughton nick@inset.co.uk Am I a mere sheep?? nick@inset.UUCP ...!ukc!inset!nick
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (10/30/85)
Erik Fair writes: >Naming is important. Since EUUG is a UNIX users group, and since this >network is 98% UNIX machines, I expect that the content of the group >will be about internationalizing UNIX (particularly since we, as a group >of people, have more influence over UNIX than any other operating system). >Therefore, let's call it net.unix.intnl Nooooo!!! Erik, yes we use UNIX machines to transport the net. But that's no reason to assume that we're talking about UNIX internationalization! Take a look around at the corporations represented on the net: HP, Apple, Multimate, Microsoft, Lotus (well at least one person), Intel, Digital Research, DEC, ... and of course AT&T ... Not to mention innumerable consultants and turnkey system vendors. Lots and lots of products need the benefit of internationalization. Not just UNIX. I left out my company. WordStar is in nine languages now, and WordStar 2000J works in both Kanji and English. That certainly doesn't mean we're through fighting the battles. (Why is it that Berkeley seems to have a monopoly on arrogance? It gets in the way of the good things you have to say.) -- Mojo ... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development dual! \ {ptsfa,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well! -- micropro!kepler!mojo
gdmr@cstvax.UUCP (George D M Ross) (10/31/85)
In article <852@mcvax.UUCP> piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) writes: >Maybe the name chosen was a bit too general; in that case it should just be >renamed (net.unix-intl?). There are other things in the world besides UN*X. Some of us use them more often than we do UN*X (through choice). Let's not be so restrictive. Maybe once the traffic builds up there'll be a case for splitting net.internat into a number of news sub-groups..... BTW, this is another YES vote for net.internat. -- George D M Ross, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh Phone: +44 31-667 1081 x2730 UUCP: <UK>!ukc!cstvax!gdmr JANET: gdmr@UK.AC.ed.cstvax
mikeb@inset.UUCP (Mike Banahan) (11/01/85)
In article <987@erix.UUCP> robert@erix.UUCP (Robert Virding) writes: >UNIX isn't the whole world (most of it maybe, but not >all of it :-)). Maybe net.internat is a bad name but net.intnl sounds >more like net.internal. Why not net.international? > Can I add my little bit? I guess that it's a bit of flame: FLAME ON Who the **** cares what the **** the group is called? I don't care if it is called net.pig's-bladder as long as the contents is on the subject of internationalisation. I am *strongly* reminded of that famous debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let's get on with debating character sets, collating sequences, natural language messages - not the name of the newsgroup. FLAME OFF Aah, it's good to get that out of my system. -- Mike Banahan, Technical Director, The Instruction Set Ltd. mcvax!ukc!inset!mikeb
iwm@icdoc.UUCP (Ian Moor) (11/04/85)
In article <447@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >Of course, the problem is that there is a big argument between the Europeans !!!!!!!!! >and the Domestic net wizards on how groups should be founded. Perhaps, this !!!!!!!! >is one of the needs for net.internat anyway. One of the other needs is to educate people out of this way of thinking ! To me Domestic IS European -- Ian W Moor UUCP: seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!iwm ARPA: iwm%icdoc@ucl Department of Computing Whereat a great and far-off voice was heard, saying, Imperial College. Poop-poop-poopy, and it was even so; and the days 180 Queensgate of Poopy Panda were long in the land. London SW7 Uk.