Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix.enet.dec.com!taber From: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: ONE WEEK TO CALL FOR VOTE Message-ID: <4078@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Date: 5 Mar 91 19:10:58 GMT References: <4068@ryn.mro4.dec.com> <1991Mar5.030117.17209@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <6465@rex.cs.tulane.edu> <1991Mar5.163032.21537@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Sender: guest@ryn.mro4.dec.com Reply-To: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463 Lines: 58 While mumbling to myself today, I tried to order my thoughts on why I think this split is not good. Then, trying to make Dr. Mandel, who is a very busy man, happy, I tried to come up with a way to make some kind split that could make us both happy. This is what I came up with: 1) The motivation behind the split is wrong. It's not a positive response to a need, it's a negative reaction to HP users. I.e. it's not a case of someone saying "Gee, we users need a place where we can discuss our common interests. Let's form comp.sys.handhelds.." It's a case of people saying "We're sick of hearing about the HP48 -- let's get rid of the people who talk about it." 2) As a corrolary to 1, the call for a new group is not being made to clear up bandwidth for other discussions. In fact, the non-HP traffic in the group wouldn't justify the creation of a new group -- which is the motivation behind moving the HP users! HP users CAN justify making a new group, and that means that the non-hp folks could have the abandoned group without having to justify it by traffic volume. 3) The emphasis of making a new group for the HP48 is short-sighted ( I covered my thoughts on that in a previous message, and I note that a few people seem to think the same way.) 4) It just ain't elegant. If the proposal was to reorganize the group by manufacturer, I think it would be a shoe-in. There are only a handful of serious handheld makers. HP, Sharp, Casio and TI are the only ones that spring to mind. A good case can be made that since they don't interchange code, we could reorganize the group into a hierarchy: comp.sys.handhelds ;general discussion, new products, algorithms comp.sys.handhelds.hp ;obvious comp.sys.handhelds.casio ; " comp.sys.handhelds.sharp ; " comp.sys.handhelds.ti ; " Now the hp group can settle for itself if they want to branch into subgroups by model or be one happy anarchy. And when the new model comes out, hp discussions are still confined to hp people. Only by a reorganization vote could enough votes be gotten for the others to have their own, private (empty?) newsgroups. The base c.s.h would let the rest of use hear about it if one of the other vendors happens to make something that would swing the bulk of postings into their subgroup. Would this make all sides happy? I dunno. I know that I wouldn't object to it as much as I would an HP48 or HP2848 group. We're still in the discussion period. What do you think? -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD If I was authorized to speak for my employer, I'd be too important to waste my time on this crap....