Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!plains!overby From: overby@plains.NoDak.edu (Glen Overby) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup Summary: I'm pessimistic; I'll vote "NO". Message-ID: <8674@plains.NoDak.edu> Date: 3 Mar 91 04:19:40 GMT References: <1991Mar1.213647.13550@mp.cs.niu.edu> <30737@usc> <9146@star.cs.vu.nl> Organization: Geeks of the Round Table Lines: 32 In article <9146@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes: >The main advantage >of splitting is to make the administration easier, i.e., the archive of >the source group would have all the sources. On the other hand, the >people running the archives could store the sources in the archives >separately, even with one group. ... >I think the sources group should be unmoderated. That is the way it currently works, and it shows. There are few places to go to pick up past postings, and they all maintain things differently and inconsistantly. I can only see a moderated sources group improving things; an unmoderated sources group would not change my stance as a passive moderator (aka archive site maintainer) as I would still have to sift thru just as much data in the same way as I have been doing. Only a blind "everything that came across" archive could be easily set up with a separate group. I must also quickly point out the reality that people WILL continue to post sources, bug fixes, etc. to comp.os.minix. An archive that only archives .sources would miss all that. The one thing I can see a sources group helping is communications TO the Braindead IBM Territory NETwork (BITNET). Everything passing thru the news to mail gateway could be encapsulated in an armor 'uuencode' (or 'atob') shield for it's journey thru RSCS. In short, I don't see a sources group improving much. -- Glen Overby uunet!plains!overby (UUCP) overby@plains (Bitnet)