Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!dialogic!paul From: paul@dialogic.com (The Imaginative Moron aka Joey Pheromone) Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386 Subject: Re: 2nd call to vote comp.unix.sco, undecided? PLEAD READ! Keywords: comp.unix.sco call votes sco Message-ID: <1209@dialogic.UUCP> Date: 3 May 90 15:29:26 GMT References: <216@pcssc.UUCP> <1990Apr26.173835.26100@ico.isc.com> <511640@nstar.UUCP> <382@comcon.UUCP> <221@pcssc.UUCP> Sender: news@dialogic.UUCP Reply-To: paul@voicebox.UUCP (The Imaginative Moron aka Joey Pheromone) Organization: Dialogic Corp., Parsippany, NJ Lines: 48 In article <221@pcssc.UUCP> dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) writes: >In article <382@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: >> >>Personally I have benifited time and time again from the mix in this >>group. Unix is unix and we all (as in all brands) help each other and >>benifit from the association. I say we leave it the way it is. > >I beleive that one thing we can count on is that things will not stay >the way they are. There is too much to be desired in the current Dave, you can beleive what you want, but whether it matches reality is another matter. I see *no* such tendency in this group - nearly all the replies to your push for comp.sco.unix have been along the lines of "I like it fine as it is". *I* believe the voting will show this - only time will show which of us has the correct belief. I have already registered a "nay" vote. Also, I did not receive an acknowledgement of my vote. It's usual to do this, so the sender can be sure it got there, and didn't end up on the floor. I think it would be appreciated if you alter you ballot box to do this, especially in the light of the controversial nature of the vote. I still do not understand why you want to create comp.unix.sco. I saw no objective discussion in the charter for the group - only a series of endorsements by people whose impartially was in question (this is not the way "things are done" around here - which I think explains the noise that the posting generated). As has been pointed out, most of the traffic in this group is generic UNIX 386 questions. It seems to me that the only thing that will happen is that SCO users will post generic UNIX questions to it, and cross-post to here, with the result that comp.unix.sco becomes a total subset of comp.unix.i386. Creating a separate group is the *wrong way* to achieve this partitioning. It uses a lot of resources, which are precious. You can achieve the same effect with any decent news reader - simply use kill files, etc. Can you give an example of the sort of question or discussion that could be served by comp.unix.sco, but *not* by comp.unix.i386 ? -- Paul Bennett | | "I give in, to sin, because Dialogic Corp. | paul@dialogic.UUCP | You have to make this life 300 Littleton Road | ..!uunet!dialogic!paul | livable" Parsippany, NJ 07054 | | Martin Gore