rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Prior) (02/18/91)
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > "Who I am" is a member of the Usenet community who has idntified a problem a > is trying to work constructively for a solution within the constituted proces > As I see it, anyone can initiate this process, and need only convince enough > people that it is a good idea. Do you have a compelling reason why people who > are interested in handhelds, but not SPECIFICALLY HP, should have to wade > through all the HP postings? Have you seen many postings in the last month for anything _BUT_ HP calculators here? I haven't (barring the lets.change.the.group.name idiots and the others who keep posting 'I read this group for info on other calculators!') and don't expect to. If someone _does_ post for another calculator here, then they have every right to do so. Anyone who wants to read his article also has the right to flip through the HP stuff in the process... Rob PS - I still think if there should be a change, it should become comp.sys.hp.handhelds, to match with the existing comp.sys.hp group already in place. +------------ | rob@ireta.cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | Rob Prior, President, Still Animation Logo Design +------------------------------------------------------------
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (02/19/91)
OK, folks, I have started the process of THE VOTE. The call has been posted to net.announce.newgroups. After studying the traffic for the last week or so, it seems the only workable solution is to spawn comp.sys.handhelds.hp. Comp.sys.handhelds.not.hp might make one or two people feel better, but what happens when the Casio traffic gets excessive? Comp.sys.handhelds.not.hp.or.casio? If the exclusion of HP traffic makes comp.sys.handhelds dull, so be it. I suspect that people will take up the slack soon enough. Please, let's keep discussion off the issue of what machine God Almighty carries in his pocket, and concentrate on the issue of whether there is a compelling reason not to have a separate group for HP. /sig
bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) (02/19/91)
In article <6207@rex.cs.tulane.edu> mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu writes: >OK, folks, I have started the process of THE VOTE. The call has been posted to >net.announce.newgroups. After studying the traffic for the last week or so, it >seems the only workable solution is to spawn comp.sys.handhelds.hp. <sigh>. I think that was a mistake. Having just sat through the successful reorganization of the amiga hierarchy, I think this was the wrong way to go about any group spawning. First of all, I don't think there's any general agreement on the fact that a split needs to take place, and second, even if a split does need to happen NOBODY is in agreement that this particular solution is tha one we want to adopt. Who are you to determine the future of this newsgroup without FIRST, a call for (non-official) in-group discussion of whether a split needs to happen; SECOND, call for in-group discussion of what sort of split should take place and what the split-off newsgroups should be called; THIRD, a brief waiting period STILL IN THE GROUP for any more discussion, and finally, after everybody is pretty well agreed on what the new structure should be, a post to the news.* groups for 'official' confirmation. You seem to have taken matters into your own hands with a proposal that might or might not have anybody's support, and will probably not pass since the rest of us weren't really consulted in the matter. In case anybody's interested, the ration of no votes to yes in my informal poll is about 2 to 1, though the sample size is pretty small (~10 votes) with some good proposals from those in favor - proposals we won't get to consider now, since by the time this newgroup passes or dies everybody will be so sick of the issue they won't want to vote on anything else. Sorry to rant, but this sort of irks me. ***************************************************************************** ** Bill Gribble Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA ** ** bgribble@jarthur.claremont.edu Never heard of it? You're stupid. ** *****************************************************************************
bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) (02/19/91)
And another thing - calls for discussion are posted to news.groups, NOT net.announce.newgroups (which isn't a real group, I think). If that first call didn't make it through, I suggest a call for discussion HERE before you repost. ***************************************************************************** ** Bill Gribble Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA ** ** bgribble@jarthur.claremont.edu Never heard of it? You're stupid. ** *****************************************************************************
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) (02/19/91)
In article <10873@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> bgribble@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Bill Gribble) writes: ><sigh>. I think that was a mistake. Having just sat through the successful > reorganization of the amiga hierarchy, I think this was the wrong way > to go about any group spawning. > The purpose of the discussion period is to allow people to make suggestions as to the appropriateness of the group name and mandate. If you have a suggestion, make it. If you have no constructive input, then there is little point to posting. >First of all, I don't think there's any general agreement on the fact that > a split needs to take place, and second, even if a split does need to > happen NOBODY is in agreement that this particular solution is tha one > we want to adopt. Who are you to determine the future of this newsgroup > without FIRST, a call for (non-official) in-group discussion of whether > a split needs to happen; SECOND, call for in-group discussion of > what sort of split should take place and what the split-off newsgroups > should be called; THIRD, a brief waiting period STILL IN THE GROUP > for any more discussion, and finally, after everybody is pretty well > agreed on what the new structure should be, a post to the news.* > groups for 'official' confirmation. You seem to have taken matters > into your own hands with a proposal that might or might not have anybody's > support, and will probably not pass since the rest of us weren't > really consulted in the matter. "Who I am" is a member of the Usenet community who has idntified a problem and is trying to work constructively for a solution within the constituted process. As I see it, anyone can initiate this process, and need only convince enough people that it is a good idea. Do you have a compelling reason why people who are interested in handhelds, but not SPECIFICALLY HP, should have to wade through all the HP postings? So far as the unofficial discussion, it has been going on for two weeks. The official call for discussion initiates a period of up to 31 days, during which time we try to assess whether the proposal is sufficiently meritorious to warrant the vote. I have studied the document on new group creation, and have tried to adhere to the policies stated. Incidently, regarding your next posting to this group, I copied the name of the group to post the official call to from the document. It is indeed news.announce.newgroups, not news.groups. So far as consultation, exactly what would you have me do? It's not like there is a list of phone numbers somewhere that I can access and call everyone personally. I have posted 4 messages to the group in the last 2 weeks on this. The issue has been around long enough for people to be aware of it. > >In case anybody's interested, the ration of no votes to yes in my informal > poll is about 2 to 1, though the sample size is pretty small (~10 > votes) with some good proposals from those in favor - proposals we won't > get to consider now, since by the time this newgroup passes or dies > everybody will be so sick of the issue they won't want to vote on > anything else. If you are correct, then you have nothing to fear from the process. If the group rejects the split, I will abide by the decision. > >Sorry to rant, but this sort of irks me. > Bill, I am not sure that ranting ever accomplishes much except to prove that you can do it. If you have constructive suggestions to make, you have 30 days to convince me not to submit the proposal for a vote. I am a reasonable person, and will listen to all logical arguments. I would prefer if you not dip your arrows in poison before sending them, but I am a big boy; I survive in a private university's medical school. Jeff E Mandel MD MS Asst Professor of Anesthesiology Tulane University School of Medicine New Orleans, LA
pevans@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Phillip Evans) (02/20/91)
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: > seems the only workable solution is to spawn comp.sys.handhelds.hp. > comp.sys.handhelds dull, so be it. I suspect that people will take up the sla comp.sys.handhelds.dull -- I LIKE IT!
fozzy@cerberus.bhpese.oz.au (Andrew Steele) (02/20/91)
mandel@vax.anes.tulane.edu (Jeff E Mandel MD MS) writes: >OK, folks, I have started the process of THE VOTE. The call has been posted to >net.announce.newgroups. After studying the traffic for the last week or so, it >seems the only workable solution is to spawn comp.sys.handhelds.hp. I think it would be a good idea. Consider this a YES! I suppose another suggestion may also be a moderated comp.sys.handhelds.hp.src?
paul+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul J. Dujmich) (02/21/91)
How about some consideration for: comp.sys.handhelds.hp.geeks_tweebs_calculator_junkies comp.sys.handhelds.hp.how_do_i_tell_what_rom_rev_i_have comp.sys.handhelds.hp.beat_a_dead_horse.cost_of_ram_cards comp.sys.handhelds.hp.beat_a_dead_horse.how_can_i_make_a_serial_cable comp.sys.handhelds.other_inferior_calculators comp.sys.handhelds.hp48-CRAY_XMP.interfacing comp.sys.handhelds.hp.define."clicky" comp.sys.handhelds.hp.define."mushy" comp.sys.handhelds.hp.electrical_engineering_programs comp.sys.handhelds.hp.all_other_useless_programs comp.sys.handhelds.hp.beat_a_dead_horse.free_equation_library_card comp.sys.handhelds.hp.are_we_sure_37_assemblers_are_enough comp.sys.handhelds.user.programs I fully realize the last entry is a bit radical, but me must all realize that there *MUST* be people out there that use the HP48 for what it was intended ......... as silly as that might sound. All flames directed to /user/dev/null. :-) \paul