vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) (08/24/88)
# Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split. So, essentially, I'm # suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel. This is not a good idea. Partly because, volume notwithstanding, the two topics are each repulsive to many people interested in the other. Partly because, even if no 286/386 split is appropriate, the group would be called comp.unix.sys5.intel (that is, "." instead of "-".) If any of you think a 286/386 split is inappropriate, send mail to the person who's collecting the nominations. I think it's a bad idea, but what do _you_ think? # Let's just do this and get it over with, hmm? No! Whatever you do, do not _ever_ try to steamroller something like this through. Let the nomination/voting process work - it's the only way to let people have their say. If you don't ask people what they want and give those desires some consideration, no Usenet plan-of-change can work. This was well-established in the comp.society.women debate, and if that debate taught us anything, it's that you can't just make changes to group names because one or a few people think it's a good idea. -- Paul Vixie Digital Equipment Corporation Work: vixie@dec.com Play: paul@vixie.UUCP Western Research Laboratory uunet!decwrl!vixie uunet!vixie!paul Palo Alto, California, USA +1 415 853 6600 +1 415 864 7013
chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (08/25/88)
According to vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie): >According to chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): ># Current volume does not warrant a '286-'386 split. So, essentially, I'm ># suggesting that we replace comp.unix.microport with comp.unix.sys5-intel. > >This is not a good idea. [...] Partly because, even if no 286/386 split >is appropriate, the group would be called > comp.unix.sys5.intel What is really meant here is: "Paul think the group should be called..." I have a reason for the hyphen: An earlier posting described the trouble resulting from an early proposal of "comp.unix.sys5.i286", which later became comp.unix.microport. Unless we are planning to migrate all System V ports to comp.unix.sys5.<whatever>, we should avoid creating a comp.unix.sys5 hierarchy. (And what of dual ports, like Pyramid's OSx?) So, if people want to split 286/386 traffic, I would suggest: comp.unix.xenix comp.unix.sys5-i286 comp.unix.sys5-i386 Note that I am _not_ the vote collector. I _do_ hope that this proposal becomes one of the nominees for the final vote. >Whatever you do, do not _ever_ try to steamroller something like this >through. Point taken. Let's do it right. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.uu.net> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. You make me wanna break the laws of time and space You make me wanna eat pork