Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6525 comp.sys.att:10934
Path: utzoo!attcan!ncrcan!scocan!john
From: john@sco.COM (John R. MacMillan)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: comp.sys.3b1? (was Re: Monthly posting about Unix-PC networ
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.144704.21143@sco.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 90 14:47:04 GMT
References: <35841@cup.portal.com> <1990Nov15.053246.10492@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <35955@cup.portal.com> <1990Nov16.141504.5463@dbk.uucp>
Sender: news@sco.COM (News administration)
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Lines: 44

|From reading these postings, it seems to me that most of us are in
|agreement that using 3b1 instead of unix-pc is A Good Thing. Has there been
|any great outcry of disagreement? I haven't seen any. Do we need to keep
|beating this part of the discussion endlessly?

I agree.  Let's beat a new part.

First, I suggest we at least try to agree amongst ourselves before
going to a real CFD and vote, so that we present a (relatively) united
front.  I doubt we could win a vote if the unix-pc community is
divided.

Second, I haven't yet seen a list of the pros and cons of moving
unix-pc into comp.  I wasn't around at the beginning, so I don't know
why it hasn't always been there, but there must have been reasons for
creating the first alternate hierarchy.  Unless I get some sense that
those reasons don't hold anymore, I'm inclined to go with the ``if it
works, don't fix it'' school.

If we do move to comp, I would suggest the groups:

comp.sources.3b1
comp.sys.3b1 or comp.sys.3b1.general

The sources group would then fit with *all* the other sources groups
under comp.  I think it would be hard to win support for
comp.sys.3b1.sources because none of the other machine-centric groups
do it that way (take a look at the amiga groups, for instance).

As for the general group, blah.general would allow for easier
expansion under blah, but since we've never seen such expansion under
unix-pc, this is of questionable value.

One last thing: whether we move under comp or not, what do people
think of making the sources group ``loosely moderated''?  The
moderator would post any 3b1 source or patches, and just screen out
non-source postings.  Then we could use some sort of volume/issue
scheme like various other source groups, so you'd know when you missed
stuff, and to make it easier to archive, and easier to refer to stuff
(``That was in volume 2'' versus ``That was a while ago'').
-- 
John R. MacMillan       | I'm in love with a McDonald's girl
SCO Canada, Inc.        | She's an angel in a polyester uniform.
john@sco.COM            |      -- barenaked ladies