jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/04/90)
Hi. Chip Salzenberg says I should run a vote if I want to see comp.unix.wizards return. I happen to think the answer is obvious. So, this is the vote. If you would like to see the return of comp.unix.wizards, with no other changes to any of the new groups, send your YES vote to my address. In a month or so, I'll tally the votes and send the results off to the net.gods for their action. I'm not suggesting any of the other groups get removed, just that c.u.wizards get reinstated. Don't bother telling me about the guidelines, that's what got c.u.wizards screwed up in the first place. Of course, the normal rules apply - no posted votes, no proxies, no stuffing the ballot box. Spread the word around to anyone you think has an interest in the return of net.wizards. I'll post a reminder towards the end, which will be either 11/3, or when interest tapers off, which normally happens in two or three weeks. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) (10/10/90)
In article <18571@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
<
< Hi. Chip Salzenberg says I should run a vote if I want
< to see comp.unix.wizards return. I happen to think the
< answer is obvious.
<
< So, this is the vote. If you would like to see the
< return of comp.unix.wizards, with no other changes to
< any of the new groups, send your YES vote to my address.
< In a month or so, I'll tally the votes and send the
< results off to the net.gods for their action. I'm not
< suggesting any of the other groups get removed, just
< that c.u.wizards get reinstated.
<
< Don't bother telling me about the guidelines, that's
< what got c.u.wizards screwed up in the first place.
< Of course, the normal rules apply - no posted votes,
< no proxies, no stuffing the ballot box.
<
< Spread the word around to anyone you think has an
< interest in the return of net.wizards. I'll post a
< reminder towards the end, which will be either 11/3,
< or when interest tapers off, which normally happens
< in two or three weeks.
(i waited for someone else to respond to this, but no one has, so i
figured i should say something...)
all i can say is that john has probably made the chances of getting
comp.unix.wizards back next to impossible. go ahead john, ignore the
guidelines, send out newgroup commands and hold votes without telling
SA's about it and all you will do is train the SA's to ignore anything
that has to do with comp.unix.wizards. if and when there is a
legitimate vote to bring back comp.unix.wizards, john has made it so
that many SA's will just ignore it and continue to alias the group.
it doesnt take many before things are really messed up.
oh yeah, i have been reading and posting to comp.unix.wizards since
before the great renaming, i voted against the renaming to c.u.i, but
i still think the things john is doing sucks.
-waynebruce@balilly.UUCP (Bruce Lilly) (10/11/90)
In article <18571@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >[ ... ] >Don't bother telling me about the guidelines, that's >what got c.u.wizards screwed up in the first place. John: stop whining, grow up, and stop acting like BIFF's kid brother. The discussion was held, the vote taken, and the appropriate changes made. The bogus newgroup control messages you've been sending out are a nuisance. Followups directed to news.groups. -- Bruce Lilly blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM