Xref: utzoo news.announce.newgroups:435 comp.os.os2:1500 comp.sys.ibm.pc:50149 comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer:1337 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ucselx.sdsu.edu!bionet!turbo.bio.net!edison.GE.COM From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,comp.os.os2,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer Subject: (Final) CALL FOR VOTES: IBM-PC Reorganisation Message-ID: <2712@edison.GE.COM> Date: 2 May 90 14:09:12 GMT Sender: lear@turbo.bio.net Reply-To: rja Followup-To: news.groups Organization: GE-Fanuc North America Lines: 83 Approved: lear@turbo.bio.net [ Addendum to 2nd draft: some folks who didn't read the proposal carefully thought that the vote was either one proposal or the other proposal. In fact, if both proposals pass both will be implemented because they are independent of each other. I have sent mail to each voter who only voted on one proposal clarifying this so all have had ample opportunity to vote on both. I have not yet posted a voter list, but will try to do so in a few days. The vote ends May 12th at 11:30 UTC. rja ] There are two proposals which are outlined below. All votes must be mailed back to me within 30 days of the posting of this article by the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. Votes should be unambiguous and those containing commentary and "if it were..." sentences will be treated as comments rather than votes as per the USENET voting guidelines. The preferred format for the vote is: Proposal 1: vote Proposal 2: vote where vote is either YES or NO. Proposals will be voted up or down as a whole so we don't confuse the namespace any more than it already is. All groups are being proposed as UNMODERATED. I will NOT send any individual acknowledgements, but I will endeavor to post at least one mid-vote mass-acknowledgement to news.announce.newgroups. The Reply-To: header has been set so that you can vote easily just by replying to this posting. Discussion (if any) should be posted in news.groups and the Followup-to: header has been set for that. Proposal 1: create comp.os.os2.apps -- for OS/2 Applications create comp.os.os2.misc -- for all other OS/2 stuff create comp.os.os2.programmer -- for OS/2 programmer discussions after a month rmgroup comp.os.os2 & alias to ~.misc create comp.os.msdos.apps -- for MS-DOS Applications create comp.os.msdos.misc -- for all other MS-DOS stuff create comp.os.msdos.programmer -- for MS-DOS programmer discussions after a month rmgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer & alias to ~.programmer Proposal 2: create comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware -- XT/AT/EISA hardware (any vendor) create comp.sys.ibm.ps2.hardware -- Microchannel hardware (any vendor) create comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc -- Everything else after a month rmgroup comp.sys.ibm.pc & alias to ~.misc EXAMPLES of where existing discussions would fit with these proposals: programming languages and the API and BIOSes and such are all ~.programmer questions about what hardware can be used with what OS are in the hardware groups as would be discussions of printers, displays, keyboards,... discussions of databases, spreadsheets, wordprocessors & other applications would belong in ~.apps discussions/questions about installing an OS or getting the config.sys correct or using the OS user-level commands would all go into ~.misc Other ideas considered but not being voted upon: Novell networks: I received a fair bit of mail wanting a separate group for Novell's Netware product, but almost every person has a different idea of what the name should be for the newsgroup. In the absence of a clear consensus on the name, there shouldn't be a vote for the group yet. TCP/IP networks: These are already discussed in comp.protocols.tcpip.ibmpc and I know of no good reason to move that discussion. other pet newsgroup names: The names proposed above are actually not at all what I personally originally had in mind (see my 1st draft posted to news.announce.newgroups a while back). The proposed names above represent a true consensus of people who either sent me mail or posted to news.groups. I firmly believe that consensus is the best way to decide on news group names and so I am following that consensus.