Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!mit-eddie!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines From: sysnmc@magic706.chron.COM (Matt Cohen) Subject: Breaking up is hard... (was Re: RFD: comp.windows.x reorganisation) [LONG] Message-ID: <9105211849.AA17104@magic706.chron.com> Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Organization: The Internet Date: 21 May 91 18:49:58 GMT Lines: 154 Robert, > I'm not sure if this has been discussed before in the past It certainly has. Slightly over a year ago. Here's a digest of excerpts from relevant postings. (my comments are marked and my opinions follow): --- Begin (Excerpts) --- Date: 2 Apr 90 07:38:16 GMT From: [baur@venice.sedd.trw.com] (Steven L. Baur) Subject: Re: proposed comp.windows subgroups (was XView/Motif) [...] I am taking a poll that will last until the end of the week. The question is should comp.windows.x be split into three news groups: comp.windows.x comp.windows.x.motif comp.windows.x.xview [...] [additional subgroups were later proposed -MC] --- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 10:43:53 EDT From: uunet!nadc.nadc.navy.mil!zinnato (R. Zinnato) Subject: Re: proposed comp.windows subgroups (was XView/Motif) [...] Well, not really another idea, but just a reminder: There are a lot of us who do not have access to USENET and are having all of the articles that are posted to comp.windows.x mailed to us via xpert. Unless you have someone willing to do the same kind of thing for each new group created, a lot of us may get lost in the shuffle and will have no access to anything. [...] --- Subject: Re: Splitting up c.w.x Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 09:56:21 -0400 From: uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!rws (Bob Scheifler) [...] if the usenet side wants to split up into umpteen newgroups, most of the MIT Consortium staff will probably simply not read or respond to messages posted to them, because it's too much trouble. If the split involves subjects that we would normally be interested in and would normally be the primary ones responding, well that will just give us more time to concentrate on real work, won't it? Even in the case of "not directly related" software like Motif and XView, there are often broader questions being asked (if indirectly), and those would pass us by as well. We currently make a considerable effort to read and respond to messages on comp.windows.x/xpert, but there's a definite limit ... --- Subject: Re: Splitting up c.w.x Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:48:52 -0400 From: uunet!expo.lcs.mit.edu!rws (Bob Scheifler) [in reply to a comment on the previous message -MC] [...] What is it exactly that's so much trouble? Maintaining large public mailing lists. If the new newsgroups are gatewayed elsewhere, would Consortium members be too bothered to participate? If others are willing to maintain (for the long term) mailing lists for new newsgroups, we'll be happy to subscribe and add to their workload. :-) If discussions in groups/lists you don't participate in cover aspects of your "real work", would your sponsors support your "it's my ball" attitude or would they direct you to trouble yourselves? I suspect a lot of them might already suggest that we spend too much time on "public works", if they knew how time consuming reading xpert mail is. :-) But I haven't taken a poll, and don't intend to. I prefer not to think of this as "it's my ball". Many people out there seem to feel that we're public servants and should be willing to go to arbitrary lengths to do whatever is demanded in the way of providing public services. Sorry, that isn't the case. We try to provide some public service, but there's a definite limit to our resources. If the newsgroups want to go their own way, they are free to, we couldn't stop it even if we wanted to. Someone asked what would happen to Consortium staff involvement, and I've tried to give a realistic answer. --- Date: 16 Apr 90 15:20:05 GMT From: [meo@salestech.com] (Miles O'Neal) Subject: Re: Splitting up comp.windows.x [...] Whoever wants to mess with the current scheme needs to address this issue. [gateways -MC] Are you willing to set up gateways and handle additional mailing list stuff? Otherwise you mess over a lot of people who rely on the extant structure, many of whom are responsible for X being what it is today, and certainly some who have no news access. [...] Worse yet, some of those broader questions [about X -MC] would then be answered *only* in the context of the new groups, risking answers that are *incorrect* in the larger scheme of things. [...] --- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 10:59:18 -0400 From: der Mouse Subject: Re: Splitting up comp.windows.x [...] "Why is it that people choose to read xpert instead of comp.windows.x?". The Consortium staff, for example, clearly have none of the problems you've listed above, ["We don't have access to news" -MC] yet they read xpert. As do I - I could read comp.windows.x if I chose, but I get xpert instead. With me (I clearly can't speak for anyone else), it's a psychological thing. I find it very hard to ignore mail in my mailbox, but I find it very hard *not* to let my netnews reading slide, and not because the groups I read are uninteresting to me, either. [...] --- End (Excerpts) --- In the end, the proposal died, although the motif and openlook newsgroups/mailing lists were formed and have helped somewhat. Xpert/c.w.x remains one of the more voluminous technical lists/groups around. IMHO, there is no good solution. In an ideal world, someone could edit xpert into digests by subtopics (c.f. comp.sys.sun/sun-spots), for those who are interested, but I don't know if such a saint exists. To close, some numbers awk'ed up from my (not quite complete) collection of the last 20K or so articles (since Dec 1989). Please keep the real value of such statistics in mind... :-) 20327 articles 14774 submitted through Usenet 5553 submitted through Xpert -- Matt Matt Cohen INET: sysnmc@chron.com Department of Technology Resources UUCP: ...!uunet!chron!sysnmc The Houston Chronicle AT&T: +1 713 220 7023 801 Texas Avenue, Houston, TX 77002 "The opinions above are most likely "Houston's Leading Information Source" those of my employer."