Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6724 comp.sys.att:11066 news.groups:26168
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!psuvax1!burdvax!news.gvl.unisys.com!gvlf1-c!markw
From: markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Attempt at choking the dead horse (comp.sys.att.3b1)
Summary: Sorry, my mailer is broken.
Message-ID: <1990Dec4.164232.22013@news.gvl.unisys.com>
Date: 4 Dec 90 16:42:32 GMT
References: <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1990Dec3.205742.18931@news.gvl.unisys.com> <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp>
Sender: news@news.gvl.unisys.com (The NEWS user)
Reply-To: markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber)
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Lines: 67

In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes:
>
>>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for
>>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. 
>>Hopefully, voting can begin as quickly as the guidelines allow. If you feel
>>my proposal needs some modification, please send me email, as I think that
>>we've used up enough bandwidth in discussing this. If you would like to
>>moderate the comp.sources.att.3b1 group, send me email.
>
>Well, yes Mark, I do object.  I posted the call for discussion, remember?
>
>No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown.
> 

I'm truly sorry about this. A quick check of the system here shows that
our mailer is broken. The automatic forwarding from our gateway machine
"GVL.Unisys.COM" won't work, but mail directly to my workstation cluster
"gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM" will work OK. Serves me right for trying to do
this from work, rather than from my trusty 3b1 at home!

I erroneously assumed that the lack of correspondence from you indicated
that you were willing to go along with my proposal.

>I have been considering your proposals with great care.  However, it is my
>opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have
>really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att.

I agree that the reorganization of comp.sys.att probably needs more
discussion. I was hoping to take care of both proposals with a single vote.
I think there is a fair amount of support for the reorganization from 
other AT&T users.

>>    comp.sys.att.63xx       6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386
>
>I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the
>386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes.
>

I got this idea from the maintainer of the pc63xx mailing list, who 
listed these machines as the boxes which are discussed on the list. 
I agree that the discussions about 386 unix belong in comp.unix.sv386,
but don't some people run DOS on 6386 boxes?

>I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if
>everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you.
>

Please do. I would only ask that you call the group comp.sys.att.3b1
rather than comp.sys.3b1. The has been some opposition to the new group 
proposal from people who don't understand why it shouldn't be under
comp.sys.att. While there are some similar Convergent and Motorola
boxes out there, the vast majority say AT&T on them. This name would
also be compatible with a future reorganization of comp.sys.att, which
I will propose later, probably after the holidays (and after I get my 
mailer fixed!).

Once again, sorry about this mixup. I'm looking forward to voting for
a new 3b1 group in the near future.


Mark

Internet: markw@gvlf1.GVL.Unisys.COM
UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!lock60!mhw

(yes, these addresses DO work)