bernie@DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) (06/01/91)
In <1991May31.140016.14308@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >> Yes, I hate to say it, but the all-encompassing >> grand re-organization of comp.sys.amiga missed >> one. >Missed several, actually, but adding twelve groups >at a whack was probably the limit the net would >tolerate. And thirteen would have been unlucky :-) ? Seriously though, it was an enormous undertaking, which was complicated enough at the time. >> It has been about six months since the >> re-organization passed, so I feel it is time to >> suggest one more group. >Don't stop at one, more are needed. >> A new group called comp.sys.amiga.system would be >> quite useful. [ outline of purpose deleted ] >Those are all applications (except that the >directory utilities could fit in a system group >equally easily), even if their only contribution >gets costed under overhead. Moving this kind of >discussion to c.s.a.applications, which is fairly >quiet compared to c.s.a.misc, would solve this >part of the problem. If only you could get prospective posters to recognize the distinction. With such a wide variety of newsgroups, it's often hard to pick exactly the right group. >> Most of this sort of discussion is now ending up >> in comp.sys.amiga.misc, with some trickling into >> csa.applications and into csa.programmer. >Well, there was always going to be the problem that >too many discussions would stay in c.s.a.misc; it >is mostly a matter of gently redirecting them. Maybe >a monitor for c.s.a.misc is in order. If so, are >there any volunteers? Not me. My eyes are falling out already. I concentrate on 300 other newsgroups. c.s.a.misc and c.s.a.misc get browsed, but not read. I have to admit that I read more alt.folklore.computers. >Before going public, why not chat in the Amiga >groups for a bit about doing something about >c.s.a.programmer, which is still _much_ too big. >Does any clever soul see a reasonably clean >partitioning of the current traffic? Not this clever soul ... :-) not right now. But read on, enlightenment is imminent. >I'd suggest c.s.a.advocacy as the natural place >for such a discussion, and have pointed followups >there. Don't forget about _appropriate_ cross-posts to the groups you are talking about. Many people don't even subscribe to c.s.a.advocacy. >Also, comp.unix.amiga garnered a lot of traffic >as Amiga SYSV R4 Unix took off; it may be time, or >be time soon, to look at a partitioning there. Not really, IMHO. As a regular reader, I find only 10-20 articles coming in per day. This is not a problem. As Amiga Unix is so close to standards, non-Amiga-specific postings can go in the general comp.unix.* hierarchy. Advocacy postings postings can go where they belong, in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. Some cross-posting does take place. This is healthy, and not in the least annoying. (If you use a mailer or primitive news reader, your point of view may differ.) >And, comp.sys.amiga.hardware could easily be cut >into a .design, .standard, .3rd-party, and .hackers >set or some such to cut the existing traffic there >into manageable chunks. And maybe one called comp.sys.amiga.hardware.dave-haynie :-) I would like to see a comp.sys.amiga.standards newsgroup, focusing on both hardware and software standards. The Amiga is a _system_, consisting of hardware and software. It's what makes the Amiga. I reckon if IBM got their hands on it, they'd make it run MS-DOS. The standards group will help to coordinate the development of Amiga-related products. Although developers _should_ be registered, there are those hackers (in the nicest sense of the word) who create something, as a one-off, with no permanent ambitions find registration to be bothersome, especially for those not under the Spam Bargled Spanner (or something like that:-)). Having a standards forum would take some load off the programmer and hardware groups. Q: "How do I open a window, without breaking something?" A: "Don't use a brick, dummy" Q: "How does Zorro work?" A: "Zorro works only when you watch. He's a lazy bum." >If we chat about the things folks see misaligned >from the last reorganization a bit, perhaps a better >way can be found and more things included in this >vote than just a cleanup of one of the problem >areas. No system is perfect. A system that's aimed at satisfying everybody just won't work. Creeping consensus will destroy a working system, or destroy everybody's enjoyment thereof. It takes a few level-headed individuals (only 1 or 2 thousand :-)) to make a decision, take action, and endure the flames. We'd still be deciding on what colour to make the wheel if we had to talk to everybody about it. Having said that, the newsgroup organisation should remain organic, new newsgroups sprouting as the need arises, and dying as they atrophy. >Since the reorganization, we've picked up Matt >Dillon's two alt groups for Amiga UUCP, and >surprisingly with all the other available spots, the >mordibund group alt.sources.amiga has become a >moderately active _discussion_ area. That really >looks like just folks looking desperately for a >quiet place to chat. What are Dillon's alt groups? I've never heard of, or seen them? >That gives about 20 Amiga newsgroups overall; not >quite the half of the net we were aiming for, but a >good start. If we multiply by four again this time, >80 newsgroups should give us a little elbow room >for the next six months. >;-) Now I see why followups-to comp.sys.amiga.advocacy. :-D -- ________Bernd_Felsche__________bernie@DIALix.oz.au_____________ [ Phone: +61 9 419 2297 19 Coleman Road ] [ TZ: UTC-8 Calista, Western Australia 6167 ]