Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!INTERLAN.INTERLAN.COM!towfiq
From: towfiq@INTERLAN.INTERLAN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Vote for/against "comp.protocols.iso.migration"
Message-ID: <9006152306.2.12619@cup.portal.com>
Date: 16 Jun 90 06:06:38 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 42

In article <4488@infmx.UUCP> kwang@infmx.UUCP (Kwang Sung) writes:

	   Now I would like to finalize my proposal on creation of a new
   newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration".

Gaah!

	   Here is a list of all persons who have responded to my postings 
   [.....]
	   Obviously, majority wanted to create such a newsgroup on USENET.
   Among 54, 30 said "Yes", 17 said "No", and 7 were not clear.

I think this may have been proper procedure in 1982.

   [.....]
	   So, could you create a new newsgroup "comp.protocols.iso.migration"
   as soon as possible so that we can discuss seriously and aggressively,
   and nobody can bother either "comp.protocols.iso" or "comp.protocols.tcp-ip"
   any more ??

Bother the people directly involved in this issue?

   Persons who have responded to my proposal so far:
   [list deleted]

This is ridiculous.  Comp.protocols.iso *maybe* had about two articles
a day in it before this "proposal" came up, and it jumped to a
whopping five after that.  I see *no reason* for the creation of a new
newsgroup, especially since the normal procedures for group creation
have been disregarded, or garbled at best.

Kwang: read news.announce.newusers.  I think you would probably
realize from there that there is *no need* for an ISO migration group;
relevant articles can just be crossposted to
comp.protocols.{iso,tcp-ip}.

Mark
--
Mark Towfigh, Racal InterLan, Inc.                 towfiq@interlan.Interlan.COM
W: (508) 263-9929 H: (617) 488-2818                       uunet!interlan!towfiq

  "The Earth is but One Country, and Mankind its Citizens" -- Baha'u'llah