Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!atha!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!lobster!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup Message-ID: <5M.9Z65@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: 13 Mar 91 15:28:35 GMT References: <30737@usc> <9146@star.cs.vu.nl> <9222@star.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 40 OK, I've offered to run a vote. Several people have sent me mail supporting this. Any dissenters? First order of business is the name of the group. Two have been proposed, comp.sources.minix and comp.[os?].minix.sources. There are good points for both of them: comp.sources.minix: Pro: It's the traditional name for a sources group. It will help keep people who don't want sources from blowing out their sys files. It will help people running automatic archivers. Con: It will probably be necessary to moderate it to get it passed. comp.os.minix.sources: Pro: It is more likely to pass without a moderator. Con: It's going to force people to complicate their sys files to avoid it. It's not traditional. This might hurt its chances. The next point is... does it want to be a moderated group? A moderator does put some delays in the process, but it also cleans up the flow in the group and may help get some organization in the chaos of contradictory patches that are seen in comp.os.minix. A really good moderator would even be able to merge some of the patches or determine that they're not actually fixing the problem at hand... just covering it up. The ideal moderator would be Andy Tannenbaum, but I suspect he's a bit busy. :-> So, if I'm acceptable as a vote-taker (I'll probably run the vote from home) I'll post a CFD in a few days. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"