Xref: utzoo unix-pc.general:6779 comp.sys.att:11109 news.groups:26290
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!skeeve!bagend!jan
From: jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att,news.groups
Subject: Re: Attempt at choking the dead horse (comp.sys.att.3b1)
Message-ID: <1990Dec7.061724.1413@bagend.uucp>
Date: 7 Dec 90 06:17:24 GMT
References: <1990Dec3.205742.18931@news.gvl.unisys.com> <1990Dec4.125658.6995@bagend.uucp> <1990Dec4.164232.22013@news.gvl.unisys.com> <1990Dec5.142026.9794@swbatl.sbc.com>
Organization: 1 Bagshot Row, the Shire
Lines: 24

dwn@swbatl.sbc.com (David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007) writes:

>I'm still unclear on the advantage of placing the 3b1 group under
>the .att. group.  If the group ends up comp.sys.3b1 then there's
>no problem with compatibility with the future re-organization of
>comp.sys.att, right?  I really do believe the Convergent and Motorola
>owners will find the group, regardless of it's location, but how do
>we settle this group-name thing before a call for votes?

There are 2 ways to settle it.

1. declare that there is a majority in favor of comp.sys.3b1 and call a
   vote for it.  There is some evidence that this position is justifiable.

2. do a "multi-way" vote that allows for voting for the name as well as the
   group itself.

I have sent a call for votes to Eliot.  It is #2, by the way.  I think it
is the only fair way to do it.

Jan
-- 
The good and the bad thing about drugs | home jan@bagend 404-434-1335
drugs is that they wear off. -Elliston | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan