bret@codonics.COM (Bret Orsburn) (12/22/89)
In article <1929@syma.sussex.ac.uk> jonm@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jonathan Meyer) writes: >PS. This news group gets so many letters, I can't keep up. Do others feel that >there should be a comp.windows.xt, as well as a comp.windows.x ? This is the best run news group I'm aware of, thanks to the quick and authoritative replies from the Bob Scheifler, the Consortium staff, and the various members. (Keep up the good work, folks!) Having said that, I think some thought should be given to a split. This group is 90% high level client programming now. (Not by actual measure, but by subjective impression) While I find much of this discussion interesting, and would probably track it to some degree anyway, it makes for awful slow going when one wants to track other aspects of X. (It is easy to imagine a day very soon when less than 1% of the X community will care about Widgets and Callbacks.) An x/xt split may indeed be warranted (client developers are in a much better position to say ;-), but since someone left the door open a crack, let me toss out my own pet theory: I think a forum for user/system administrator questions may be in order. There is already quite a lot of traffic in this subject area. I suspect traffic would be greater, but for a degree of self-censorship that occurs out of deference to the caliber of discussion in this group. Also, traffic in these areas will grow very quickly as X is more widely adopted. (We are all expecting explosive growth over the next year or two, are we not?) Because such a group would handle more mundane questions, and a lot of repeat questions, it would not require the level of monitoring currently provided by the Consortium for this group. The quality (signal to noise ratio) of the new group would not be as good as the current group, but I think that such an outcome is inevitable as the X community expands. In that regard, my suggestion could be viewed as a way to safeguard the integrity of the current group. Just a thought.... \ / Merry X mas / \ -- ------------------- bret@codonics.com uunet!codonics!bret C Is Not Baroque Bret Orsburn Don't Fix It
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (12/22/89)
I think some thought should be given to a split ...
but ... let me toss out my own pet theory
This is why I think a split is pretty useless. There are as many theories
about how to split as there are people asking for a split. If you think we
at MIT want to maintain that many mailing lists, think again. Now, if you
don't mind having the Internet xpert mailing list gatewayed in both directions
to every comp.windows.x.<foofram> you care to invent, and take whatever level
of traffic reduction this affords from the Usenet side, that's fine with me.
I could conceivably be convinced to split xpert into two lists, but I really
doubt you can get agreement on what the two lists should be. For example,
I would prefer to see an xpert vs. xannouncements as the best split. You
hackers out there will continue to slog through countless mail messages
anyway :-), but we're losing people who simply want to track major announcements
about X Consortium standards, conferences, books, software, etc.rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini) (12/23/89)
This group also supports lots of beginnings repeatedly asking similar questions. Comp.graphics posts weekly answers to most often asked questions. Examples: Where can I obtain X source? List of X reference books. Microcomputer vendors of X ports. Upcoming conferences about X. ...
beshers@cs.cs.columbia.edu (Clifford Beshers) (12/23/89)
In article <8912221426.AA14382@expire.lcs.mit.edu> rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) writes:
I could conceivably be convinced to split xpert into two lists, but I really
doubt you can get agreement on what the two lists should be.
How about a list for those who want two lists, and another for
those who don't?
--
-----------------------------------------------
Cliff Beshers
Columbia University Computer Science Department
beshers@cs.columbia.edudsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (12/23/89)
In article <8912221426.AA14382@expire.lcs.mit.edu>, rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) writes: > > I think some thought should be given to a split ... Absolutely! > This is why I think a split is pretty useless. There are as many theories > about how to split as there are people asking for a split. If you think we > at MIT want to maintain that many mailing lists, think again. So bag the mailing list idea, already. What do you think news is for? Do you really prefer mailing lists to news? Have you ever used xrn? Do you *really* enjoy having to maintain the mailing list? What percentage of xpert/comp.windows.x users receive it by mail? A quick check shows that only 101 of the 416 current articles under comp.windows.x on ark1, the local news server, came from xpert. Of those 101 mail-sourced articles, over half (roughly 55) were from the X Consortium. So approximately 10% of the postings to xpert/ comp.windows.x came from non-Consortium Internet xpert members. I'd suspect that the percentage for readers would be about the same. Now I realize those 55 articles from Scheifler, Fulton, Swick, et al, represent a sizeable portion of the total information content of the group, and I *really* appreciate the fact that they take time out to tell us "it's fixed in R4" (just kidding, really :-), but I can't help but feel like they're doing us a disservice by not responding to the repeated calls to segregate the group. > I could conceivably be convinced to split xpert into two lists, but I really > doubt you can get agreement on what the two lists should be. For example, > I would prefer to see an xpert vs. xannouncements as the best split. You > hackers out there will continue to slog through countless mail messages > anyway :-), but we're losing people who simply want to track major announcements > about X Consortium standards, conferences, books, software, etc. Okay then, how about: comp.windows.x.questions General questions about X including (xquestions) installation, support, configuration, where-to-get-it, when-will-R4-happen, are-there-any-PC-X's, etc. comp.windows.x.tech Questions about X programming and (xpert) toolkits, server/client ports, etc. comp.windows.x.announce Major announcements about X Consortium (xannouncements) standards, conferences, books, software, etc. I really don't think three newsgroups is splurging for a topic the size of X. In fact I'm sure we'll need more someday. And I don't think it's absolutely mandatory that the X Consortium support the appropriate newsgroup structure. It doesn't really take a Bob Scheifler to handle the generic stuff that would come up in comp.windows.x.questions. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (12/23/89)
What do you think news is for?
News is for people that *like* to have their From: line be an unintelligible
spew of gibberish. [For example,
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!ophiuchi!dsill@think.com (Dave Sill)
instead of
From: dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil
What a wonderfully useless thing this is in the Internet.]
Do you really prefer mailing lists to news?
I prefer to read my mail with one interface (xmh). Most Consortium business
is conducted with mailing lists, and xpert is only a small part of my daily
business.
Have you ever used xrn?
No. The last thing I need is multiple interfaces for mail.
Do you *really* enjoy having to maintain the mailing list?
Of course not. But Usenet is not the entire world.
What percentage of xpert/comp.windows.x users receive it by mail?
We have about 200 entries on our xpert list, most of them redistributions.
I have no idea how many people that translates to, or what the relative
percentages are. I think I'm safe in saying that most of the entries on
xpert are there because news is not a reasonable option for them.
I'd suspect that the percentage for readers would be about the same.
I'd say there's no basis for a calculation.
I can't help
but feel like they're doing us a disservice by not responding to the
repeated calls to segregate the group.
Gee, remind me again who pays my salary, and why? But seriously, if we
thought there was anything approaching consensus out there on how to split
things up in a reasonable way to a small number of lists, we'd probably cave
in. And as I suggested, there's really nothing stopping people from voting
in the creation of whatever newgroup subdivision is desired, if you don't
mind xpert broadcasting over them, or having them unread by Consortium staff.J_H_Jensen@cup.portal.com (12/31/89)
Want my vote? Leave it alone, no split. I get testy with cross-postings, which would be an inevitable consequence of topics not neatly fitting split-up guidelines. I'm in the position (I bet lots of others are too) of having to *educate* others about X, as I learn for them. It is *useful* for me to see what usually confuses people just starting in X, even if it takes up some of my mail bandwidth. Hope this is useful, and with a lot to learn, Jerry Jensen j_h_jensen@cup.portal.com Generic Freelance Disclaimer: I am unemployed, and I have no opinions.