Xref: utzoo news.groups:23965 comp.unix.internals:326
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!stiatl!bagend!slammer!nyet!pete
From: pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Give comp.unix control to the wizards
Message-ID: <414@nyet.UUCP>
Date: 19 Sep 90 23:12:30 GMT
References: <8629:Sep1411:54:0590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: pete@nyet.UUCP (Pete Hardie)
Organization: The Order of Seekers For Truth and Pentinence
Lines: 32


In all of this brouhaha, it seems to boil down to a few points:

1)  comp.unix.internals seems to worry those who might end up on the wrong
	side of a lawyer because of license agreements

2)  how to limit/stop the neophyte questions that are answered by the FAQ
	posting

3)  all the 'wizards' now have to follow several groups to see the same
	discussions, instead of the grab-bag c.u.w used to be.

#1 is not solvable without recourse to legal opinion.  If anyone has a
problem with the name, let them ask a qualified lawyer for advice.  It
may be that there is a better name for the group, based on its current
charter (someone has suggested c.u.kernel).

#2 will never go away as long as the comp.unix.* groups are not moderated.
We might as well live with it.

#3 seems to be generating the most heat.  If the wizards want to keep the
same smallish group for wide-ranging discussion, why not create a mailing
list for that, and keep the newsgroup name?  If you really are trying to
follow threads about kernal deatils, porting code to a {large|small} unix
system, the trials of using Unix on a 386 machine, and the joy of SCO Xenix,
I don't see why you should feel put out by having to scan multiple groups.


-- 
Pete Hardie             mail: ...!emory!stiatl!slammer!nyet!pete
"Well, Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable,
And Lightness has a call that's hard to hear" -- Indigo Girls