sysnmc@magic706.chron.COM (Matt Cohen) (05/22/91)
Robert,
> I'm not sure if this has been discussed before in the past
It certainly has. Slightly over a year ago. Here's a digest of
excerpts from relevant postings.
(my comments are marked and my opinions follow):
--- Begin (Excerpts) ---
Date: 2 Apr 90 07:38:16 GMT
From: [baur@venice.sedd.trw.com] (Steven L. Baur)
Subject: Re: proposed comp.windows subgroups (was XView/Motif)
[...]
I am taking a poll that will last until the end of the
week. The question is should comp.windows.x be split into three news
groups:
comp.windows.x
comp.windows.x.motif
comp.windows.x.xview
[...]
[additional subgroups were later proposed -MC]
---
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 10:43:53 EDT
From: uunet!nadc.nadc.navy.mil!zinnato (R. Zinnato)
Subject: Re: proposed comp.windows subgroups (was XView/Motif)
[...]
Well, not really another idea, but just a reminder: There are a lot of us
who do not have access to USENET and are having all of the articles that
are posted to comp.windows.x mailed to us via xpert. Unless you have someone
willing to do the same kind of thing for each new group created, a lot of us
may get lost in the shuffle and will have no access to anything.
[...]
---
Subject: Re: Splitting up c.w.x
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 09:56:21 -0400
From: uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!rws (Bob Scheifler)
[...] if the usenet side wants to split up into umpteen newgroups, most of the
MIT Consortium staff will probably simply not read or respond to messages
posted to them, because it's too much trouble. If the split involves
subjects that we would normally be interested in and would normally be
the primary ones responding, well that will just give us more time to
concentrate on real work, won't it? Even in the case of "not directly
related" software like Motif and XView, there are often broader questions
being asked (if indirectly), and those would pass us by as well. We
currently make a considerable effort to read and respond to messages on
comp.windows.x/xpert, but there's a definite limit ...
---
Subject: Re: Splitting up c.w.x
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:48:52 -0400
From: uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!rws (Bob Scheifler)
[in reply to a comment on the previous message -MC]
[...]
What is it exactly that's so much trouble?
Maintaining large public mailing lists.
If the new newsgroups are
gatewayed elsewhere, would Consortium members be too bothered to
participate?
If others are willing to maintain (for the long term) mailing lists for
new newsgroups, we'll be happy to subscribe and add to their workload. :-)
If discussions in groups/lists you don't participate in cover aspects
of your "real work", would your sponsors support your "it's my ball"
attitude or would they direct you to trouble yourselves?
I suspect a lot of them might already suggest that we spend too much time
on "public works", if they knew how time consuming reading xpert mail is. :-)
But I haven't taken a poll, and don't intend to.
I prefer not to think of this as "it's my ball". Many people out there seem
to feel that we're public servants and should be willing to go to arbitrary
lengths to do whatever is demanded in the way of providing public services.
Sorry, that isn't the case. We try to provide some public service, but
there's a definite limit to our resources. If the newsgroups want to go
their own way, they are free to, we couldn't stop it even if we wanted to.
Someone asked what would happen to Consortium staff involvement, and I've
tried to give a realistic answer.
---
Date: 16 Apr 90 15:20:05 GMT
From: [meo@salestech.com] (Miles O'Neal)
Subject: Re: Splitting up comp.windows.x
[...]
Whoever wants to mess with the current scheme needs to address
this issue. [gateways -MC] Are you willing to set up gateways and handle
additional
mailing list stuff? Otherwise you mess over a lot of people who rely on
the extant structure, many of whom are responsible for X being what it
is today, and certainly some who have no news access.
[...]
Worse yet, some of those broader questions [about X -MC] would
then be answered *only* in the context of the new groups, risking
answers that are *incorrect* in the larger scheme of things.
[...]
---
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 10:59:18 -0400
From: der Mouse <uunet!larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!mouse>
Subject: Re: Splitting up comp.windows.x
[...]
"Why is it that people choose to read xpert instead of
comp.windows.x?". The Consortium staff, for example, clearly have none
of the problems you've listed above, ["We don't have access to news" -MC]
yet they read xpert. As do I - I
could read comp.windows.x if I chose, but I get xpert instead.
With me (I clearly can't speak for anyone else), it's a psychological
thing. I find it very hard to ignore mail in my mailbox, but I find it
very hard *not* to let my netnews reading slide, and not because the
groups I read are uninteresting to me, either.
[...]
--- End (Excerpts) ---
In the end, the proposal died, although the motif and openlook
newsgroups/mailing lists were formed and have helped somewhat. Xpert/c.w.x
remains one of the more voluminous technical lists/groups around.
IMHO, there is no good solution. In an ideal world, someone
could edit xpert into digests by subtopics (c.f. comp.sys.sun/sun-spots),
for those who are interested, but I don't know if such a saint exists.
To close, some numbers awk'ed up from my (not quite complete)
collection of the last 20K or so articles (since Dec 1989). Please
keep the real value of such statistics in mind... :-)
20327 articles
14774 submitted through Usenet
5553 submitted through Xpert
-- Matt
Matt Cohen INET: sysnmc@chron.com
Department of Technology Resources UUCP: ...!uunet!chron!sysnmc
The Houston Chronicle AT&T: +1 713 220 7023
801 Texas Avenue, Houston, TX 77002 "The opinions above are most likely
"Houston's Leading Information Source" those of my employer."