alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) (04/12/91)
This is of course, way out in left field... In the process of pruning my 'comp' tree, I noticed that there are a lot of 'second-tier' newsgroups, that are related as computer engineering-type newsgroups. I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups to reflect this: comp.cog-eng --> comp.software-eng.cognitive OR comp.software-eng.user-interface comp.groupware --> comp.software-eng.groupware comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia comp.object --> comp.software-eng.object comp.realtime --> comp.software-eng.realtime comp.software-eng --> comp.software-eng.misc comp.specifications --> comp.software-eng.specifications Now maybe comp.software-eng could be shortened to comp.soft-eng, like comp.soft-sys.andrew, but you get my drift. The current names are slightly vague but the discussions are predominately software engineering in nature. You see a lot of cross-posting among these groups, so to me that is another rationale for re-organizing: that the average user may be misled by the vagueness of the current news group names. I think that the majority of the readership and posters of these groups are professional and/or university research/engineering individuals involved in issues related to those software engineering 'topics.' (I could have put that better...) (Anyway, let the hornet's nest open...) Alex Laney alex@telecdn.uucp, ...uunet!telecdn!alex
lingling@wam.umd.edu (Lisa Wolfisch) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr11.170634.14666@telecdn.uucp> alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) writes: > >I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups to >reflect this: > >comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia I think this is a bad idea. WHile many readers may be into sware-engineering, others like my self, are not. Personally, I would not have subscribed since I would have not glanced at newsgroups starting with comp.software-engineering. While this is unimportant for those current subscribers, new subscribers may be confused as to the content of the news group. There are many of us University folk, who are interested in multimedia as a classroom tool, but do not want to get bogged down in *too* many engineering discussions which may occur. My $0.02 worth. -- Lisa Wolfisch "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear." Laboratory for Computer Mapping and Spatial Analysis, UMCP lingling@wor.umd.edu Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
dptom@endor.corp.sgi.com (Tom Arnold) (04/12/91)
Some how I don't think that comp.software-eng. would be a suitable title for the group. Although, I am such an engineer, I believe that this may give an incorrect impression as to the type of conversations that take place in these groups and, thereby, possibly limit a new user from participating. *All software is not developed by engineering types*.
ral@hydra.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Roger Lighty) (04/13/91)
While some may approach these subjects as software-engineering, others have definitions of S/W-ENG which would not allow progress in these fields. If you put S/W-ENG in the title, and the discussion wanders to user preferences or data on human factors/psychology -- here come the flame wars. Cog-eng, groupware, multimedia are about more than the latest structured programming technique. Even in the computing domain, there is more to these areas than S/W. Would we then need a comp.hardware.multimedia. And looking at some of the other groups: comp.S/W-ENG.groupware might need a comp.sociology.groupware; comp.S/W-ENG.cog-eng might need a comp.biology.cog-eng and comp.psychology.cog-eng. no, No, NO! comp.S/W-ENG is too parochial a view of the multi-disciplinary nature of these fields. Not all of us are comp.sci. Some of us are biologists and there are rumors of social scientist and even (don't let it get around) artists and real designers working in these fields. NO TANX ral@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov
travis@scrod.cs.washington.edu (Travis Craig) (04/13/91)
As I'm sure many who read this news group would agree, the field of real-time systems encompasses much more than just software engineering issues. I feel that "comp.realtime" is a very appropriate name (if not just "realtime":-) )
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/13/91)
alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) writes: > This is of course, way out in left field... No, it's pretty reasonable actually. > I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups... > comp.cog-eng --> comp.software-eng.cognitive OR comp.software-eng.user-interface > comp.groupware --> comp.software-eng.groupware > comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia > comp.object --> comp.software-eng.object > comp.realtime --> comp.software-eng.realtime > comp.software-eng --> comp.software-eng.misc > comp.specifications --> comp.software-eng.specifications I suggested a similar hierarchy during the discussion period of many of those groups. The following group could also fit under the same hierarchy: comp.sw.components Software components and related technology. > Now maybe comp.software-eng could be shortened to comp.soft-eng, like comp.soft-sys.andrew, > but you get my drift. How about using the existing comp.sw hierarchy? comp.sw.engineering comp.sw.cog-eng somp.sw.groupware comp.sw.multimedia comp.sw.object comp.sw.realtime comp.sw.specifications comp.sw.components comp.sw.misc (just a suggestion, in the interest of avoiding COBOL fingers) -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`