Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:69672 news.groups:24611
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!ag
From: ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,news.groups
Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION: Split the c.s.a group more?
Keywords: newsgroups
Message-ID: <15300@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 22 Oct 90 03:17:33 GMT
References: <583@DIALix.oz.au> <1990Oct9.002011.18060@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Oct10.021956.24856@servalan.uucp> <1108@bilver.UUCP> <3409@corpane.UUCP>
Reply-To: ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Unix; West Chester, PA
Lines: 25

In article <3409@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
>bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>>Discussions like this belong in news.groups, not in the system
>>hierarchy.  
>
>Notice the subject line? call for ***LOCAL*** discussion. We are not proposing
>the groups yet. Kent Dolan merely wanted to start a discussion to see if it
>was even feasible to start an official discussion in news.groups. As of yet
>we havent even decided that we will try to split up c.s.a. much less which
>groups to try to split it into. This is a very preliminary discussion so far.

So this is a meta discussion on whether or not a news.groups
discussion should be held.  Sounds like a typical news.groups
discussion to me.

Seriously, news.groups is here to take the noise of group plans out of
the hierarchy (even if they are about thinking about splitting a
group).

If people are interested in a discussion about splitting the group
they will subscribe to news.groups.

Followups to news.groups.

Pax, Keith