Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!athame
From: athame@athena.mit.edu (Dirk Karis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Call for vote: SPLIT GROUP!
Message-ID: <1991Feb14.202458.18373@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 91 20:24:58 GMT
References: <EbiAXsa00UzxI4eqRg@andrew.cmu.edu> <1076@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1991Feb14.144545.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>
Sender: news@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Reply-To: athame@athena.mit.edu (Dirk Karis)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 22

In article <1991Feb14.144545.1@capd.jhuapl.edu>, waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes:
|> In article <1076@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU>, barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry 
|> Merriman) writes:
|> 
|> 	[...material deleted...]
|> > I agree its time for a split---but how about a sequence of
|> > bifurcations as needed, rather than splintering all at once.
|> > The first bifurcation, it seems, would be
|> 	I agree with this approach.  I believe I've seen it implemented with
|> 	names (to tweak Barry's suggestions just a tad) such as:
|> 		comp.sys.next.tech
|> 		comp.sys.next.discussion or comp.sys.next.d

Yes, yes!
This has several advantages over the split all at once approach- it'd
be easier to decide where a message belongs (I've been thinking about
the recent articles, and they don't reflect the distributions people have selected
in particular, music does not warrant its own group at this point) and none
of the groups would die for lack of readers.

Dirk Karis
athame@athena.mit.edu