Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix!taber From: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: RFD: comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 and comp.sources.hp48 moderated Message-ID: <4723@ryn.mro4.dec.com> Date: 7 May 91 17:22:05 GMT Sender: guest@ryn.mro4.dec.com Reply-To: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber) Followup-To: comp.sys.handhelds,news.groups Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463 Lines: 95 In article <3=7g=j@rpi.edu>, spell@seq.uncwil.edu (Chris Spell) writes: |> |> |> RENEWED REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION |> How pleasant -- another discussion. [...] |>Here are the names we propose now: |> |>comp.sources.hp48 moderated, for HP 48-SX source code postings |>comp.sys.handhelds.hp48 unmoderated, for general HP 48-SX discussion |>comp.sys.handhelds.misc unmoderated, renamed from comp.sys.handhelds |> |>Our primary objective is to provide specific groups for the HP 48-SX; |>the renaming of .handhelds is incidental, but not critical to the |>proposal. Renaming .handhelds to .handhelds.misc will allow new |>handheld groups to be easily created and will match the USENET |>namespace more appropriately. Ideas to create groups for other |>handhelds should be addressed in another proposal. Since it's a call for discussion, it seems that ideas to create other groups should be considered proper. In specific, now that we've had a chance to see that the HP95 has at least equal potential to "dominate comp.sys.handhelds" it would seem that a little more forethought should be given to the naming scheme. I have no problem with a moderated group for collecting HP48 sources. Have a ball. But the general discussion group is, in my opinion, a massive flaw. It is short-sighted and foolish to create a whole new group for a single model of a single manufacturer's calculator. Last time I said this, people started hooting an hollering that other models that might swamp c.s.h were far in the future and we could deal with them then. Thus it happened that the very same day the group create messages went out for the HP48-only group, the HP95 accounted for over 3,000 lines of postings! Fortunately the net.gods have sent the original idea back for reconsideration. I DON'T FAVOR ANY SPLIT AT ALL, but if there's going to be one, how about doing it in a rational manner? |> |>HISTORY AND MOTIVATION: |> |>HP 48-SX topics and source code postings dominate comp.sys.handhelds |>often squeezing out worthwhile discussion which is otherwise suitable |>for the group. To break out the 48 traffic to its own groups would |>allow people who want to post about other machines to not feel |>overwhelmed and unheard. This statement of "history and motivation" is pure opinion. There is nothing to show that any discussion was "squeezed out" by the HP48. However unfactual the statement may be, the people who make it (over and over and over) really believe it and I am sure they are acting out of good faith. IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SINGLING OUT A PARTICULAR MODEL OF CALCULATOR DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. I made this suggestion during the last discussion period, but it didn't get much discussion. I make it again, because now we've had a chance to see how short-term a short-term solution can be. I suggest one umbrella group followed by specialized groups sorted by manufacturer. The umbrella group can be used for announcements and comments general to all users, the sub-groups will let the people who use particular machines to have a place where they won't have the annoying squeezing out of worthwhile discussion which is alleged to be happening now. comp.sys.handhelds comp.sys.handhelds.hp (for *all* HP models) comp.sys.handhelds.casio comp.sys.handhelds.ti comp.sys.handhelds. Further subdivision in the groups can be left up to the group readership. If you want to have a moderated group that collects sources for the HP48, fine. It still fits just the way it does in the less general proposal. This way, Portfolio and Poquet owners don't need to be protected from HP owners -- they have their own place to be. When HP announces a new wonder machine there are no sudden "bubbles" in the other groups. We've seen how much effort it takes to do a split at all. Why not do it in such a way that it doesn't have to be done again when the HP comes out? -- >>>==>PStJTT Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD "Nerd" is so demeaning, I prefer "fashion-impared."