peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/23/91)
Request for Discussion -- MINIX sources group.
The group comp.os.minix contains a large proportion of source postings:
including patches, updates to MINIX, and complete sources. For the past
couple of week there has been discussion about creating a separate group
for these postings. I have volunteered to run the vote, and have been
gathering material for a formal RFD, so here it is.
While it is considered traditional to create a moderated group, with a
name like comp.sources.minix, the largest proportion of material that does
not fall under the traditional definition of source postings... in fact
the majority seems to be large uuencoded archives of patches for the MINIX
kernel: patches from Andy Tannenbaum for new releases of MINIX, and patches
for enhancements like 32-bit mode on the 386 from MINIX users.
Thus I am presenting a number of options that have come up during the
discussion: a moderated traditional comp.sources.minix, an unmoderated
comp.os.minix.sources (or, to reflect the fact that it's not complete
source code postings, comp.os.minix.code), as well as my idea of a
moderated sources group and an unmoderated patches group. Several people
have come forward as possible moderators, should that option win.
There is also a gatewayed mailing list, and whether it should be split
into two lists or should be gatewayed to and from one and/or the other
also has to be considered. A separate binaries group, so people who
don't have enough CPU to run GCC can get GCC-compiled software, has
also been suggested.
Andy Tannenbaum, who is after all the author of MINIX and thus deserves
a couple of vote all by himself (:->), wrote the following in comp.os.minix
(in article <9302@star.cs.vu.nl>):
- I'm happy to have you run the vote. I definitely don't like the idea of
- a moderated group. I'm not even sure I'd contribute to it. Anarchy has
- worked pretty well so far. If we align with the formal structure of USENET,
- other people may insist that comp.sources.minix contains full programs, not
- just 2-line cdiffs and the like, since that is the way the other groups work.
- For copyright reasons that is not always acceptable, depending on the source
- of the material. In short, comp.sources.minix is quite different than
- comp.sources.xyz for all xyz. For this reason I don't think it belongs there
- in the hierarchy.
- Personally, I don't think a split is necessary, but if everyone else does,
- I could live with an unmoderated comp.os.minix.sources or maybe
- comp.os.minix.code or comp.os.minix.patches just to emphasize that the group
- is not intended for the exclusive posting of public domain sources.
- I would prefer to keep comp.os.minix, but if for technical reasons groups
- with the syntactic structure a.b.c.d and a.b.c are not allowed, then
- comp.os.minix could become comp.os.minix.d or comp.os.minix.disc.
- I think any voting proposal should at least have several possibilities.
- My own preferences from best (1) to worse (5) are:
- 1. Keep it as it is now Best
- 2. comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.code (unmoderated) |
- 3. comp.os.minix and comp.sources.minix (unmoderated) |
- 4. comp.os.minix and comp.os.minix.code (moderated) V
- 5. comp.os.minix and comp.sources.minix (moderated) Worst
As for me, I'm not going to argue strongly for any particular case. There
are plenty of voices already, and as the vote-taker I don't believe it
would be proper for me to display significant bias.
--
(peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/25/91)
This message has been modified by the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. Followups were unexpectedly redirected solely to news.groups... so I'm afraid that you will have to read news.groups to track the discussion of this proposal. I apologise for this, but it was none of my doing. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
reynolds@fsg.com (Brian Reynolds) (03/27/91)
How are those of us who get minix through the mail list supposed to follow this? I do not currently have a newsfeed (it has been down for over a month). I think it's much more important that the minix community discusses what to do with its newsgroup (and mail list) than for the rest of the USENET community to worry about what we're doing. As far as my opinion goes, I like the idea of a discussion group (comp.os.minix, aka minix-l) and a second unmoderated group for sources and patches (comp.os.minix.code, maybe minix-src-l). The second group should also be a second, separate, mail list. This would allow those of us on the mail list to archive as easily as those getting the newsgroup. If you what to read all the sources (by mail list), once you have subscribed to the source list, it would look the same as before since all the postings could wind up in the same local mail box. Brian Reynolds "... a drone from sector 7G." Fusion Systems Group reynolds@fsg.com -or- ...!uupsi!fsg!reynolds
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/28/91)
In article <49029@nigel.ee.udel.edu> reynolds@fsg.com (Brian Reynolds) writes: > How are those of us who get minix through the mail list supposed to > follow this? I do not currently have a newsfeed (it has been down for > over a month). I will forward any discussion in news.groups. So far there hasn't been any. None at all. Between flaming about rec.music.christian, rec.music.funky, rec.music.rap, rec.music.reviews, rec.music.noise, rec.music.pop-rocks, misc.activism.commie/fascist, and rec.sport.frisbee.tm.whammo.corp, nobody has any time for us. > I think it's much more important that the minix > community discusses what to do with its newsgroup (and mail list) than > for the rest of the USENET community to worry about what we're doing. Looks like that's what's happening anyway. The invisible hand or something. I'll put out a vote for comp.os.minix.something mid-april. I still prefer the name ".sources" to ".code", since they *are* synonyms and "sources" is the traditional name. Previous groups that have departed from this tradition haven't fared well (see, frex, alt.source-code). The overwhelming preference seems to be for an unmoderated subgroup in any case... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) (03/29/91)
In article <AFBAJZ6@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: [information about voting, etc., deleted] >The overwhelming >preference seems to be for an unmoderated subgroup in any case... >-- Well, I'm not sure on what basis the conclusion is made, but since it jibes with my own preference, I'm willing to accept it on faith :-) Does this mean, then, that the vote will be strictly an up/down vote on whether to have an unmoderated subgroup or to not have one??? >Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com >+1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?" John Nall nall@rigel.cs.utk.edu
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.133150.13165@cs.utk.edu> nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) writes: > Does this mean, then, that the vote will be strictly an up/down vote > on whether to have an unmoderated subgroup or to not have one??? Unless someone fill my mailbox in the next two weeks. I personally prefer the idea of a moderated group, and have two volunteers, but the traffic on this group indicates it's not the preferred arrangement. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
vancleef@iastate.edu (Van Cleef Henry H) (03/31/91)
In article <KKCAH51@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Unless someone fill my mailbox in the next two weeks. I personally >prefer the idea of a moderated group, and have two volunteers, but >the traffic on this group indicates it's not the preferred arrangement. >-- Why are we talking "moderated?" The only reason I have heard for this is "everybody else is doing it" for source files. My whole feeling is that this voting is all to "fix" something that is working. --
nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) (03/31/91)
In article <KKCAH51@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Mar29.133150.13165@cs.utk.edu> nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) writes: >> Does this mean, then, that the vote will be strictly an up/down vote >> on whether to have an unmoderated subgroup or to not have one??? > >Unless someone fill my mailbox in the next two weeks. I personally >prefer the idea of a moderated group, and have two volunteers, but >the traffic on this group indicates it's not the preferred arrangement. Good, that is what I had hoped it meant. In that case, I will vote against it, since as someone has pointed out, it "ain't broke, so why fix it?". Since the traffic on this group has indicated that only the up/down vote is desired, perhaps further traffic can indicate that the down would prevail, and then we would not have to have a vote at all, verdad? :-) John Nall
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar31.132500.28795@cs.utk.edu> nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) writes: > Good, that is what I had hoped it meant. In that case, I will > vote against it, since as someone has pointed out, it "ain't broke, > so why fix it?". Whether or not it's broke is a matter of opinion. We obviously have different opinions on this matter. It's one that comes up periodically, and without a vote we can't complete on it: it'll just come up again and again, so it's in your interests too for the vote to be run. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
clark@ttidca.TTI.COM (Ralph Clark) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Mar31.132500.28795@cs.utk.edu> nall@cs.utk.edu (John Nall) writes: > > ... In that case, I will > vote against it, since as someone has pointed out, it "ain't broke, > so why fix it?". Since the traffic on this group has indicated > that only the up/down vote is desired, perhaps further traffic can > indicate that the down would prevail, and then we would not have to > have a vote at all, verdad? :-) > >John Nall > I completely agree. Issuing a Request For Discussion does not mandate a vote. I haven't seen any support for this split from anyone who actually posts sources. -- Ralph Clark (clark@ttidca.tti.com) {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!clark
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/04/91)
In article <25259@ttidca.TTI.COM> clark@ttidca.TTI.COM (Ralph Clark) writes: > I completely agree. Issuing a Request For Discussion does not mandate a > vote. I haven't seen any support for this split from anyone who actually > posts sources. It's the people who want to *use* the sources I'm concerned about. As an alternative, do you suppose all the people who post sources could be convinced to add "Archive-name:" entries as the first line of their messages? I don't. But I do see a need for some such mechanism to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) (04/04/91)
In article <PPGAOW8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > do you suppose all the people who post sources could be >convinced to add "Archive-name:" entries as the first line of their >messages? I don't. I asked that of the group once... it didn't work. I suppose a monthly reminder woulda helped a little... but, still, I don't think Minix people really think (or care?) about what happens to their programs after expire has done it's work... -- Glen Overby <overby@plains.nodak.edu> uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/05/91)
In article <9418@plains.NoDak.edu> overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) writes: > In article <PPGAOW8@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > do you suppose all the people who post sources could be > >convinced to add "Archive-name:" entries as the first line of their > >messages? > I suppose a monthly reminder woulda helped a little... but, still, I don't > think Minix people really think (or care?) about what happens to their > programs after expire has done it's work... Then why bother posting it? I mean, really... In any case, would the people running the mailing list gateways get in touch with me? I had kind of hoped they would have before now, without prompting, just on the off chance the split passed. I'm not going to run any vote until the mailing list issue is resolved, and I'm not the guy with the tools to resolve it... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"