Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6660 comp.sys.att:11021 news.groups:26047
Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!becker!bdb
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal on the unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att newsgroup changes
Message-ID: <57804@becker.UUCP>
Date: 2 Dec 90 02:32:05 GMT
References: <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 30

In article <75436@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes:
|[...]
|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.

4) we begin to wonder what the fuss was all about, and
gradually but inexorably come to the conclusion that it
wasn't a very good idea after all.


I'm pretty sure I'm in favor of number 4.


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker	Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
 `\o\-e	 UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb
 _< /_	 "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk