Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6626 comp.sys.att:11000 news.groups:25979
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!templon
From: templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Proposal on the unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att newsgroup changes
Message-ID: <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 90 13:53:32 GMT
Sender: news@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Lines: 63


I want to make a proposal on what we do about the unix-pc.* great renaming
and/or re-organization issue.

1) We started out just wanting to change unix-pc.* to comp.sys.3b1.  Many
had realized that there were distribution problems with the unix-pc.*
groups and wanted to use the mainstream as a way to get all the postings.
Many were worried about a perceived large number of 'unix on my PC' postings.

2) Some other people jumped in after the CFD and decided that this was a good
opportunity to reorganize comp.sys.att.  Now it is hard to see discussion
on news.groups that does not touch on this issue.  I think the net.at.large
has gotten this in its head and it may be hard for us to turn the discussion
back to comp.sys.3b1 (or whatever you want to put there.)

Thus it seems to me we have a three choices:

1) Take on the whole comp.sys.att reorganization NOW.  Put the 3b1 somewhere
under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.att.7300, comp.sys.att.unixpc,
comp.sys.att.3b1.  We then have a sources group to match in comp.sources.
We also propose creation of comp.sys.att.3b2, comp.sys.att.63xx, etc.

2) we propose to put the new group under comp.sys.att.{3b1,unixpc,7300} and
state that we would like to make the new group compatible with any FUTURE
reorganization, but we really are only interested in the 3b1 models.  We
say 'let the 3b2 owners get their own newsgroup passed.'

3) we propose to call the group comp.sys.convergent.s4 which completely
divorces us from at&t and explicitly include the CT people.

Pros: 1) will probably be viewed best by the net.at.large (the non-unixpc
people who will vote on it anyway because they like reorganizing newsgroups.)
2) might go over OK too.

2) is probably the least hassle for us on unix-pc.*.

3) gets us away from the whole att issue.

Cons: 1) we have to get everybody to agree to a much larger set of changes
which will probably be more time-consuming.

2) but some might say 'why should we put up with it
now AND THEN AGAIN when the 3b2 people wanna do it?'

3) this really does make the group hard to find.  it might not be likely
that someone who purchases a UNIXPC would ever think to look in
comp.sys.convergent.s4.  We could solve this by crossposting our monthly
posting to comp.sys.att.

Well, my proposal is that we decide on one of the above three, and then
try to push it through (or else let's drop the whole issue, and those of
us who want to get all the articles just start posting in comp.sys.att
and crosspost to unix-pc.general so we don't leave out those people.)
My personal favorite is proposal 2), since it has in my opinion the
max possibility for causing us the least hassle and least resistance from
the net.guardians.  I also favor out of the three possible names in 2)
using comp.sys.att.3b1.  I think there is enough opposition to the name
comp.sys.att.unixpc that it's not worth considering, and I don't think
ANYONE is advocating comp.sys.att.7300.

	Let's hear what the rest of you think.

				Jeff