coleman@sunny.DAB.GE.COM (Richard Coleman) (08/17/90)
Since this board has so much traffic, has anybody thought about
splitting it up into several boards. I'm not sure how that even
works, but I thought I might mention it. I was thinking that possible
boards are comp.windows.x.xlib, comp.windows.x.xt, comp.windows.x.misc,
comp.windows.x.xaw, comp.windows.x.internals, comp.windows.x.icccm,
comp.windows.x.protocol, etc. Like I said, these are just suggestions.
Any comments. Any suggestions. Let me know what you think.
I'll summarize any feedback I get for the net.
Richard Coleman
G.E. Aerospace
coleman@sunny.dab.ge.commouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (08/18/90)
> Since this board has so much traffic, has anybody thought about > splitting it up into several boards. Is that a question or a statement? > I was thinking that possible boards are comp.windows.x.xlib, > comp.windows.x.xt, comp.windows.x.misc, comp.windows.x.xaw, [etc]. This has been suggested in the past. The major problem, as I understand it, is that comp.windows.x is not just comp.windows.x; it is also a mailing list called xpert. And the people who run the mailing list - primarily Consortium staff - are not interested in maintaining many mailing lists. (If this is not true, I'm sure someone from the Consortium will feel free to correct me!) So the alternatives are few: - what we have now - many newsgroups, none of them gatewayed with xpert - many newsgroups, one of them gatewayed with xpert - many newsgroups, with some person sorting out xpert messages and putting them in the appropriate newsgroup(s) Clearly the last would be the best, but who wants to be the "some person"? It's pretty clearly a thankless job. The second is not too great; each side of the split loses the expertise of the other side. The third is not good; netnews will see many articles in inappropriate groups, creating much flamage of innocent posters to xpert, and the non-gatewayed groups will probably die out for lack of postings - and then we're right back where we started. About all the first has to recommend it is that it's in place, its faults and benefits are known, and it mostly works. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
de5@STC06.CTD.ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) (08/20/90)
Yes, comp.windows.x is ripe for a split-up. In article <9008172221.AA21929@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU writes: > >... So the alternatives are few: > > - what we have now > - many newsgroups, none of them gatewayed with xpert > - many newsgroups, one of them gatewayed with xpert > - many newsgroups, with some person sorting out xpert messages > and putting them in the appropriate newsgroup(s) > >Clearly the last would be the best, but who wants to be the "some >person"? It's pretty clearly a thankless job. Would all of the newsgroups be gatewayed back into xpert? Crossposting would have to be dealt with somehow. >The second is not too >great; each side of the split loses the expertise of the other side. Agreed. >The third is not good; netnews will see many articles in inappropriate >groups, creating much flamage of innocent posters to xpert, and the >non-gatewayed groups will probably die out for lack of postings - and >then we're right back where we started. Why would the news side see many inappropriate postings? Why would non-gatewayed groups have insufficient traffic? (Look at the percentage of xpert traffic that comes from the comp.windows.x side. Last time I checked, xpert was roughly 80% news/20% mail.) >About all the first has to recommend it is that it's in place, its >faults and benefits are known, and it mostly works. It works well enough that we ought to be careful not to break it, but it works poorly enough that we ought to try to fix it. My impression was that the Consortium would be willing to support perhaps a couple more mailing lists *if* there was consensus on what those lists should be. (Whatever happened to comp.windows.x.announce or c.w.x.xannounce?) I think the best split would be to break out the X programming topics into comp.windows.x.programmer (a new mailing list), and rename comp.windows.x to comp.windows.x.misc (xpert). -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) These are my opinions. Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (08/20/90)
My impression was that the Consortium would be willing to support
perhaps a couple more mailing lists *if* there was consensus on what
those lists should be.
In my present grumpy state, I am unwilling to deal with any more
large-scale public mailing lists, except
Whatever happened to comp.windows.x.announce or c.w.x.xannounce?
Beats me, but I'll probably be setting up an announcements mailing list soon.mouse@SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (08/21/90)
>> ... So the alternatives are few: [edited] >> 1) what we have now >> 3) many newsgroups, one of them gatewayed with xpert >> The third is not good; netnews will see many articles in >> inappropriate groups, creating much flamage of innocent posters to >> xpert, and the non-gatewayed groups will probably die out for lack >> of postings - and then we're right back where we started. > Why would the news side see many inappropriate postings? Because xpert types will send articles on all subjects to xpert, where they will get gatewayed into the froup corresponding to xpert. Then someone who knows nothing of the existence of xpert will start flaming about "get this out of here and over in comp.windows.x.motif.questions where it obviously belongs" and tempers will rise.... > Why would non-gatewayed groups have insufficient traffic? (Look at > the percentage of xpert traffic that comes from the comp.windows.x > side. Last time I checked, xpert was roughly 80% news/20% mail.) Okay, they likely wouldn't then. I had no statistics and was taking a guess. The reason I guessed as I did is the apparent-to-me likelihood that as xpert-side posters contribute to discussions, they will have the effect of moving traffic on all topics into the xpert-gatewayed froup. Perforce, many of the netnews posters will follow, and it becomes a self-reinforcing exodus towards the gatewayed froup. > I think the best split would be to break out the X programming topics > into comp.windows.x.programmer (a new mailing list), and rename > comp.windows.x to comp.windows.x.misc (xpert). If you can find a volunteer somewhere to run xprogrammers, go for it. I certainly can't see that we have anything to lose by trying it. der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
matt@bacchus.esa.oz.au (Matt Atterbury) (08/22/90)
In article <9008172221.AA21929@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU writes: > I was thinking that possible boards are comp.windows.x.xlib, > comp.windows.x.xt, comp.windows.x.misc, comp.windows.x.xaw, [etc]. This has been suggested in the past. The major problem, as I understand it, is that comp.windows.x is not just comp.windows.x; it is also a mailing list called xpert. - what we have now - many newsgroups, none of them gatewayed with xpert - many newsgroups, one of them gatewayed with xpert ^^^ let this one be comp.windows.x.xpert, containing *ONLY* the xpert mailing list stuff. At least then I don't have to wade through everyone's religious debate about Motif Vs OpenLook etc :-). - many newsgroups, with some person sorting out xpert messages and putting them in the appropriate newsgroup(s)