jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) (05/11/91)
Remember the vote, folks?
Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup
control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed
by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups.
--
Jan Isley jan@bagend {known universe}!gatech!bagend!jan (404)434-1335bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (05/12/91)
In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: |Remember the vote, folks? | |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. I've decided not to rmgroup these, in case there's still folks who for some reason wish to use them, for whatever reasons they might have... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M.
tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) (05/13/91)
In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: |> |Remember the vote, folks? |> | |> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup |> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed |> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. |> |> I've decided not to rmgroup these, in |> case there's still folks who for some |> reason wish to use them, for whatever |> reasons they might have... I think that is mistake. The only reason for using them is to talk about the unix-pc. Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no reason to keep the groups. The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix question. They probably will not get their questions answered, as there will be few people reading those groups. There are already groups for that, and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers. -- Tom Tkacik GM Research Labs tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com tkacik@kyzyl.mi.org
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (05/14/91)
In article <53168@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: |In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: ||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan |Isley) writes: ||> |Remember the vote, folks? ||> | ||> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup ||> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed ||> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. ||> ||> I've decided not to rmgroup these, in ||> case there's still folks who for some ||> reason wish to use them, for whatever ||> reasons they might have... | |I think that is mistake. The only reason for using them is to talk about |the unix-pc. Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no reason to |keep the groups. The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix |question. They probably will not get their questions answered, as there will |be few people reading those groups. There are already groups for that, |and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers. Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't have the right to interfere with any of those uses, as inefficient as it may be viewed by anyone not using them... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M.
tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) (05/15/91)
In article <100419@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> In article <53168@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: |> |In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> ||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan |> |Isley) writes: |> ||> |Remember the vote, folks? |> ||> | |> ||> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup |> ||> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed |> ||> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. |> ||> |> ||> I've decided not to rmgroup these, in |> ||> case there's still folks who for some |> ||> reason wish to use them, for whatever |> ||> reasons they might have... |> | |> |I think that is mistake. The only reason for using them is to talk about |> |the unix-pc. Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no reason to |> |keep the groups. The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix |> |question. They probably will not get their questions answered, as there will |> |be few people reading those groups. There are already groups for that, |> |and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers. |> |> |> Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't |> have the right to interfere with any of |> those uses, as inefficient as it may be |> viewed by anyone not using them... If you don't, who does? Somebody should do it. The voting done back in January said that those groups were to be removed at the end of three months. I know that's what I voted for. They should be removed! -- Tom Tkacik GM Research Labs tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com tkacik@kyzyl.mi.org
rhaar@albert.cs.gmr.com (Robert L. Haar CS50) (05/15/91)
In article <53348@rphroy.UUCP>, tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: |> In article <100419@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> |> In article <53168@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik |> CS/50) writes: |> |> |In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> |> ||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan |> |> |Isley) writes: |> |> ||> |Remember the vote, folks? |> |> ||> | |> |> ||> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup |> |> ||> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed |> |> ||> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. |> |> ||> |> |> ||> I've decided not to rmgroup these, in |> |> ||> case there's still folks who for some |> |> ||> reason wish to use them, for whatever |> |> ||> reasons they might have... |> |> | |> |> |I think that is mistake. The only reason for using them is to talk about |> |> |the unix-pc. Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no reason to |> |> |keep the groups. The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix |> |> |question. They probably will not get their questions answered, as |> there will |> |> |be few people reading those groups. There are already groups for that, |> |> |and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers. |> |> |> |> |> |> Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't |> |> have the right to interfere with any of |> |> those uses, as inefficient as it may be |> |> viewed by anyone not using them... |> |> If you don't, who does? Somebody should do it. |> The voting done back in January said that those groups were to be |> removed at the end of three months. I know that's what I voted for. |> They should be removed! |> I agree with Tom. Part of what we voted for was the removal of the old groups once the new ones were established. The fact that a few confused people misuse the unix-pc groups is not enough to justify ignoring the vote. IMHO, the only valid reason for keeping the unix-pc groups would be if there are people who don't get the 3b1 groups yet. Is there anyone in this situation? (.... silence...) Bob Haar InterNet : rhaar@gmr.com Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research Laboratories DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.
jon@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Jon Gefaell) (05/15/91)
In article <100419@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >In article <53168@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: >|In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan >|Isley) writes: >||> |Remember the vote, folks? >||> | >||> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup >||> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed >||> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups. >||> >||> I've decided not to rmgroup these, in >||> case there's still folks who for some >||> reason wish to use them, for whatever >||> reasons they might have... >| >|I think that is mistake. The only reason for using them is to talk about >|the unix-pc. Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no reason to >|keep the groups. The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix >|question. They probably will not get their questions answered, as there will >|be few people reading those groups. There are already groups for that, >|and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers. > > > Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't > have the right to interfere with any of > those uses, as inefficient as it may be > viewed by anyone not using them... > > >-- > ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario >a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu > `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb > _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M. I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE and in keeping with that FORMAL vote, the old groups need to be removed. It is counterproductive to the goals and intents of the users of these groups that you, Mr. Becker, unilateraly decide (for no apparently good reason, by your admission) to throw a spanner in the work. RMGROUP THEM Please. Thank you. *sheesh* -- ____ Mr. Jeffersons Academical Village. \ / #include <std.disclaimer.h> Flames to: hostmaster@Virginia.EDU \/ Terrestrial Coordinates: 38 04 06N / 79 03 53W Sic Semper Tyrannis
bruce@balilly (Bruce Lilly) (05/16/91)
In article <53349@rphroy.UUCP> rhaar@gmr.com writes: >In article <53348@rphroy.UUCP>, tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: >|> In article <100419@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >|> |> In article <53168@rphroy.UUCP> tkacik@hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik CS/50) writes: >|> |> |In article <100166@becker.UUCP>, bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >|> |> ||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: [ No, I'm not going to include the entire transcript of this thread ] The unix-pc groups are going to be rmgrouped. That was part of the vote. If Mr. Becker wishes to ignore the rmgroup and keep those groups on his machine, that's his prerogative. Alternatively, he can wait a month or so and issue a call for discussion to re-create the groups. -- Bruce Lilly blilly!balilly!bruce@sonyd1.Broadcast.Sony.COM
john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (05/16/91)
|I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE |and in keeping with that FORMAL vote, the old groups need to be removed. | |It is counterproductive to the goals and intents of the users of these |groups that you, Mr. Becker, unilateraly decide (for no apparently good |reason, by your admission) to throw a spanner in the work. RMGROUP THEM | |Please. | |Thank you. *sheesh* I hate to sound like a shit-disturber, but don't forget, in spite of voting guidelines and all that, Usenet is essentially an anarchy, and if Bruce doesn't want to honour the rmgroup, well, so what? That's his prerogative as a sysadmin, and it doesn't ``throw a spanner in the works'', unless a lot of people feel like he does, in which case the group might as well be kept around for those people. For my part, albeit with some sadness and feelings of nostalgia, I will probably rmgroup the _first_ ``alternate'' Usenet hierarchy. So long, unix-pc. It's been fun.
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May16.053820.26650@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: > Usenet is essentially an anarchy, and >if Bruce doesn't want to honour the rmgroup, well, so what? That's >his prerogative as a sysadmin, and it doesn't ``throw a spanner in the >works'', unless a lot of people feel like he does, in which case the >group might as well be kept around for those people. If some people plan to keep the unix-pc groups around, I think it is very important to make certain that no one is aliasing them to comp.sys.3b1 any longer. Otherwise all the IBM-PC specific stuff we tried to avoid by dropping 'unix-pc' from the name will just keep following us ad infinum. I'm still seeing those kinds of articles here in comp.sys.3b1 every so often, presumably because of such aliasing. Ugh. -- \*=- David Sandberg, dts@quad.sialis.com ,=, ,=, -=*\ \*=- "like words whispered by waking ghosts | |uadric `=,ystems -=*\ \*=- that in my ears muttered" - Torhthelm `=\ `=' -=*\
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May16.053820.26650@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: ||I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE ||and in keeping with that FORMAL vote, the old groups need to be removed. ||It is counterproductive to the goals and intents of the users of these ||groups that you, Mr. Becker, unilateraly decide (for no apparently good ||reason, by your admission) to throw a spanner in the work. RMGROUP THEM ||Please. |I hate to sound like a shit-disturber, but don't forget, in spite of |voting guidelines and all that, Usenet is essentially an anarchy, and |if Bruce doesn't want to honour the rmgroup, well, so what? That's |his prerogative as a sysadmin, and it doesn't ``throw a spanner in the |works'', unless a lot of people feel like he does, in which case the |group might as well be kept around for those people. Normally, you're right - after all, who cares whether Bruce has an extra empty directory and active file entry. On the other hand, Bruce is the guy who keeps newgrouping alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. -- Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541, Domain: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: ...!cunews!latour!ecicrl!clewis; Ferret Mailing List: ferret-request@eci386; Psroff (not Adobe Transcript) enquiries: psroff-request@eci386 or Canada 416-832-0541. Psroff 3.0 in c.s.u soon!
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May15.145918.13958@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@turing.acs.virginia.edu (Jon Gefaell) writes: |In article <100419@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: |> |> Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't |> have the right to interfere with any of |> those uses, as inefficient as it may be |> viewed by anyone not using them... |> |> |>-- |> ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario |>a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu |> `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb |> _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M. | | |I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE |and in keeping with that FORMAL vote, the old groups need to be removed. | |It is counterproductive to the goals and intents of the users of these |groups that you, Mr. Becker, unilateraly decide (for no apparently good |reason, by your admission) to throw a spanner in the work. RMGROUP THEM | |Please. FORMAL votes apply ONLY to the "big 7", i.e. "comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk". "unix-pc" isn't part of the formal UseNet, it's just using the same facilities, just like "biz, bionet, vmsnet, alt, gnu, ...". There was substantial difference of opinion among the members of "unix-pc" as to its eventual demise - I'm merely providing for the (admittedly minority) concerns of those who felt that it should remain. Also I suppose that if the "Unix-on-a-PC" crowd started using it, the eventual outcome might be to the common good, since it might lead to a lessening dependence on the evil drug msdos 8^)... -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M.
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (05/17/91)
In article <1504@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes: | |Normally, you're right - after all, who cares whether Bruce has an extra |empty directory and active file entry. On the other hand, Bruce is the |guy who keeps newgrouping alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. ...another dumb remark from chris the spiky, sigh... I'm not going to repeat why my concerns here are very different to what happens in "alt" - that discussion doesn't belong in this forum. -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!utai!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "It's the death of the net as we know it (and I feel fine)" - R.A.M.
scott@skypod.uucp (Scott Campbell) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May16.053820.26650@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: >|I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE >|and in keeping with that FORMAL vote, the old groups need to be removed. > >I hate to sound like a shit-disturber, but don't forget, in spite of >voting guidelines and all that, Usenet is essentially an anarchy, and >if Bruce doesn't want to honour the rmgroup, well, so what? That's >his prerogative as a sysadmin, and it doesn't ``throw a spanner in the >works'', unless a lot of people feel like he does, in which case the >group might as well be kept around for those people. > >For my part, albeit with some sadness and feelings of nostalgia, I >will probably rmgroup the _first_ ``alternate'' Usenet hierarchy. So >long, unix-pc. It's been fun. In case anyone forgot, the rules for "formal votes" only count for the mainstream groups, not alternative groups like unix-pc. The vote to CREATE comp.sys.3b1 was valid but not the vote to REMOVE unix-pc.* just my US$0.16 worth... scott ps. I'm not deleting the group. -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.uucp Skypod Communications Inc. ..!gatech!dscatl!daysinns!skypod!scott 1001 Bay Street, Suite 1210 ..!uunet!utai!lsuc!becker!skypod!scott Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..!epas.utoronto.ca!nyama!skypod!scott
john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) (05/19/91)
|If some people plan to keep the unix-pc groups around, I think it |is very important to make certain that no one is aliasing them to |comp.sys.3b1 any longer. Otherwise all the IBM-PC specific stuff |we tried to avoid by dropping 'unix-pc' from the name will just |keep following us ad infinum. Yes, this will be a problem as long as sites that alias don't honour the rmgroup. It doesn't really matter though if people like Bruce carry the group.
clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) (05/19/91)
In article <101136@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >In article <1504@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes: >|Normally, you're right - after all, who cares whether Bruce has an extra >|empty directory and active file entry. On the other hand, Bruce is the >|guy who keeps newgrouping alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork. > ...another dumb remark from chris the spiky, sigh... Gee, I don't know why you're getting all offensive Bruce, I just stated a simple fact without any personal opinion. (Spiky? spiky? Like wow, nobody's ever called me *that* before! I wonder what the hell it means?) But since you bring it up, let's be *perfectly* clear, *are* you going to newgroup the unix-pc groups if someone rmgroups them? No beating around the bush - what are you going to do? [If voting doesn't apply to unix-pc groups and you seem to be threatening to newgroup them after they were voted down, why did you rmgroup can.english where voting doesn't apply either? You're not very consistent] -- Chris Lewis, Phone: (613) 832-0541, Domain: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca UUCP: ...!cunews!latour!ecicrl!clewis; Ferret Mailing List: ferret-request@eci386; Psroff (not Adobe Transcript) enquiries: psroff-request@eci386 or Canada 416-832-0541. Psroff 3.0 in c.s.u soon!
dave@das13.snide.com (Dave Snyder) (05/19/91)
If Bruce wants to keep the unix-pc groups, thats fine... but he sure as hell better not alias them to comp.sys.3b1! To do so would but us back in the same boat we just jump out of. DAS -- David A. Snyder @ Snide Inc. - Folcroft, PA UUCP: ..!uunet!das13!dave INTERNET: dave@das13.snide.com
dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (DoN Nichols) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May18.124144.3192@skypod.uucp> scott@skypod.uucp (Scott Campbell) writes: >In article <1991May16.053820.26650@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: >>|I don't understand where this attitude is coming from... There was a VOTE [ ... ] >In case anyone forgot, the rules for "formal votes" only count for the >mainstream groups, not alternative groups like unix-pc. The vote to >CREATE comp.sys.3b1 was valid but not the vote to REMOVE unix-pc.* > >just my US$0.16 worth... > >scott > >ps. I'm not deleting the group. I have already unaliased the unix-pc.* groups on my machine. (I feed nobody.) I would request that those who keep unix-pc.* around to please also unalias it, especially those sites running B-news. I have no objection to those who so desire keeping it around, but I would rather not have systems shoehorning "unix on a pc" artilces from there (where I can read or ignore as I desire) into the comp.sys.3b1 group. where I cannot see any reason for the mistaken posting to occur. Since I am a leaf node, I'll probably keep the groups in my active file for a while to see if there IS any traffic once the aliasing stops muddying the waters, but there will be no POSTINGS in those groups from this site. Please, let us not start a flame war over something like this. Thanks DoN. -- Donald Nichols (DoN.) | Voice (Days): (703) 664-1585 D&D Data | Voice (Eves): (703) 938-4564 Disclaimer: from here - None | Email: <dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com> --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
jgo@mcgp1.UUCP (John Opalko, N7KBT) (05/21/91)
In article <1991May16.053820.26650@chance.UUCP> john@chance.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes: |>It is counterproductive to the goals and intents of the users of these |>groups that you, Mr. Becker, unilateraly decide (for no apparently good |>reason, by your admission) to throw a spanner in the work. RMGROUP THEM | |I hate to sound like a shit-disturber, but don't forget, in spite of |voting guidelines and all that, Usenet is essentially an anarchy, and |if Bruce doesn't want to honour the rmgroup, well, so what? That's |his prerogative as a sysadmin, and it doesn't ``throw a spanner in the |works'', unless a lot of people feel like he does, in which case the |group might as well be kept around for those people. Mr. Becker is free to keep whatever groups he wishes on his machine. I just hope he doesn't reply to every rmgroup message with a newgroup, as he is (in)famous for doing in the alt hierarchy. The rmgroup will be honored, and the groups aliased, here and on n7kbt. John Opalko jgo@mcgp1.uucp (work) john@n7kbt.wa.com (home)
dts@quad.sialis.com (David Sandberg) (05/21/91)
In article <5025@mcgp1.UUCP> jgo@mcgp1.UUCP (John Opalko) writes: >The rmgroup will be honored, and the groups aliased, here and on n7kbt. You meant "unaliased", I hope? -- \*=- David Sandberg, dts@quad.sialis.com ,=, ,=, -=*\ \*=- "like words whispered by waking ghosts | |uadric `=,ystems -=*\ \*=- that in my ears muttered" - Torhthelm `=\ `=' -=*\