Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6748 comp.sys.att:11078 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!abhg!wrangler!ssbn!bill From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att Subject: Re: Attempt at choking the dead horse (comp.sys.att.3b1) Message-ID: <1941@ssbn.WLK.COM> Date: 5 Dec 90 02:27:41 GMT References: <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <1990Dec3.205742.18931@news.gvl.unisys.com> <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) Followup-To: unix-pc.general Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX Lines: 121 In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes: >markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes: > >>In article <75918@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes: [ recent proposal to expand the 3b1 proposal to be a general reorganization of comp.sys.att ] >>to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the >>new groups at the same time: > >no, no, and no. Hold it Jan. That sounds like "I don't care that my idea stimulated some others that might be beneficial to the entire newsgroup, let's stick with mine". More below, but I don't think that you should summarily dismiss a co-proposal that pursues a greater good. I don't think there is anything "wrong" with comp.sys.att right now, I've got an `n' button, I can skip over 3b1/7300 things and read 3b2/63xx things. There's nothing to "fix", but there are some things to improve. I think that's where Mark is coming from. I'm pretty sure that he couldn't care less about 63xx or 3b2, but there were some murmurings after you made your proposal (apologies if it was Jeffrey Templon's or someone elses proposal), I think that's what Mark's talking about. >> 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. Mark didn't bring that up, _I_ did. I mentioned that if there was interest, I would be glad to gateway the 63xx mailing list to a sys.att subgroup for 63xx machines. Thus far the reaction from the mailing list folks has ranged from passive to mild interest. I thought (and it was the reason I made the suggestion) that 63xx owners who now throw an occaisional m'aidez into comp.sys.att might benefit from the collective wisdom of the people who are already on the mailing list. Don't blame Mark for my suggestion and don't suggest that he's headed for peril "if you try to put the 386 boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes". We're talking about _AT&T_ boxes, their idiosyncracies and advantages. I'd be the first to scream if comp.sys.ibm.pc metastasized over to comp.sys.att. This is a matter of compartmentalizing comp.sys.att to better handle discussions about _AT&T_ equipment, not DOS, not 386en; it's still comp.sys.att. I'm as willing to withdraw my offer to gateway the AT&T PC63xx mailing list as I was to make it. I thought that if there was interest in having a place for it (to save cycles on your `n' button :-), it would be for the overall betterment of AT&T system owners. If anyone thought I was being pushy and trying to horn in on a 3b1 proposal, please disabuse yourselves of that notion. I sort of chimed in because I thought it would be nice to have a place for 63xx folk, much as the original suggestion for 3b1/7300 folk. If it has no appeal, no one need ask me to withdraw, I'll bolt! >>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for >>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. [ ... ] > >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. Hmmm. I don't seem to be having any trouble reaching him, maybe you should forward through Pipe Creek, TX. Sure, you posted the call for discussion, are you now saying that the discussion that you called for isn't what you wanted? I'm confused! We're going to discuss, but if the discussion isn't something you like, we're discussing something wrong? This is starting to sound like a flame and I must add here that it most certainly isn't. I have no objection whatsoever to splitting out 3b1/7300 material into some other group. I don't care whether it resides in the comp.sys.att namespace, some snobbish part of me thinks it should, but I don't care. I'm a 3b2 and a 63xx person. I'd like to have a playpen too. Other 3b2 people suggested a 3b2 playpen, I suggested a 63xx playpen. Every stitch of this was stimulated by your call for discussion for a 3b1/7300 playpen. I think it's time for each of us with a system with a death star on it to have a place to hang out. >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. Huh? Mark didn't make this all up. Admittedly, a lot happened via email rather than being posted. If Mark is guilty of summarizing email into a posted proposal, so be it. I helped him do that. I point this out because I posted one article, but flew quite a bit of mail back and forth. I can certainly see how you could thin he made this all up in a vacuum if you haven't had reliable connectivity for mail. >Seems to be a lot of grumbling about "too much noise". Well, people, this >is how the process is supposed to work, to give everyone a chance to voice >an opinion. That takes time. I should take time because if it aint done >right, you will have to live with it for a long time. Anyone remember >comp.unix.wizards? Thanks for giving me something to hide behind :-) Seriously, I know that Mark isn't trying to rain on your parade, he said it to me in terms not much differently than those. He wants to make an overall improvement in the comp.sys.att group, maybe you just want to compartmentalize 3b1/7300 and that's quite all right, it would save me some cycles on the `n' button :-) You're closer kin to Mark that either of you is to me. I figure that there are three architectures here, M68xxx, 321xx and 63xx, but they're all AT&T (regardless of how we might feel about AT&T). If we're going to make a separate group for M68xxx, why not do the others too? If that's too far beyond what you had in mind when you called for discussion, then restrict the discussion to M68xxx, the rest of us won't mind, we're used to it :-) >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. I don't think that anyone wants to preempt or usurp you, but I did get a feeling that there was good to be done in addition to what you proposed. >Jan >-- >Do not suffer the company of fools. | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335 >Buddha | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan -- Bill Kennedy usenet {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or attmail!ssbn!bill