Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax
Message-ID: <14505@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 22:25:24 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 45
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 802, Message 12 of 12


 
> The establishment of 'comp.dcom.fax' would affect this group since it
> is likely some messages which previously would have appeared in
> telecom pertaining to Fax will no longer appear here.

> I do not believe there is sufficient traffic in the subject matter of
> Fax at this time to warrant a separate group. 
 
While I agree with some of PAT's arguments about the creation of
comp.dcom.fax (note there already is an alt.fax with some regular
traffic), I disagree with his recommendation to vote NO because:
 
While it is true, that it would lose the vast knowledge available from
the many readers of telecom. However, I don't recall seeing many
fax-related messages in the Digest (most on switches and the like),
while there are, on average, a few messages per day on alt.fax. PAT
could 'fix' this loss by cross-posting himself (unless this is a
violation of some Usenet tenet). This would enable him to perform is
usual function of keeping signal to noise at a reasonable level while
still keeping the information available. Of course I don't know if he
wants more work to do ...
 
However, the bigger issue in my mind is the volume of mail to the
digest and the volume from it. Unless PAT is willing to commit to
publishing ALL the fax-related messages, then some may be lost due
to the winnowing and editing process he must, of necessity, do. And
the digest volume and frequency present a lot of material to weed (no
insult intended) through to find fax-specific information or replies.
The fact that telecom is moderated also imposes a time buffer to the
response process.
 
Since I think PAT, himself, can fix the losses resulting from the
creation of the new group, with apologies to all who are just now
recovering from the pre-election deluge, I say vote YES.
 

Jeff Sicherman
 

[Moderator's Note: Thank you for your opinion, but PAT has no
intention of taking on the extra work. As it is, I screen over a
hundred articles daily for telecom, of which you see a minimum of
12-15 on days when I am too busy to do more than one issue, and
perhaps 40-50 on days when I do several issues.  PAT]