Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!midway!clout!chinet!miroc!caw From: caw@miroc.Chi.IL.US (Christopher A. Wichura) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Another Amiga reorganization needed? Message-ID: Date: 19 Jun 91 05:11:32 GMT References: <1991Jun16.014324.532@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Jun18.092655.12436@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Lines: 78 In article <1991Jun18.092655.12436@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) wrote: > >> How about >> comp.sys.amiga.programmer.{asm,arexx,c,misc}? That >> covers the big three, and leaves a place for >> everything else. I would have included m2, but you >> said that the mail list isn't very active, and I >> don't know how it compares to the various basics. > >Only real problem I have with "by language" split is >that you'd probably divide the traffic 10-5-80-5, >and 80% of comp.sys.amiga.programmer is still too >damn big. > >I'm still looking for a good breakdown; I don't much >like mine, or any I've seen yet either; on the other >hand, I like some of the stuff proposed for .hardware >quite a bit. I need more help for ways to filter off >stuff for .misc that is big enough to constitute a >separate focus of traffic, but isn't just misplaced >for a group that already exists. > >I'd be happy with even a four way split for >c.s.a.programmer, but only if the smallest part of >the split was 20% or more; anyone have any ideas or >willing to do a subject analysis? What I'd _really_ >like is a set of "get this stuff out of my face" >proposals like the c.s.a.p.asm one Kari gave above, >for substantial chunks of traffic folks would rather >not read. What about breaking things down in terms of c.s.a.p.theorythis, c.s.a.p.theorythat, etc. Now what theorythis and theorythat really are is something to decide. It seems to me that c.s.a.p gets quite a few "HELP me this code doesn't work" as well as several long discussions about the proper way this or that should be implemented, etc. >While it's on my mind, is there any support for >trying to move alt.sys.amiga.uucp{,patches} into the >mainstream hierarchy, or is the alt distribution >sufficient for such a narrow focus? If a general reorginization is going to occur then I'd like to see the uucp groups moved under c.s.a. The main reason being that the distribution would probably be better than the current alt groups. After all, doesn't Matt maintain a mailing list that passes messages to alt.sys.amiga.uucp* on to those whose sites don't get the alt groups? I guess a question is how many people are actually on that list... >Also, Peter da Silva would like to pull the Amiga >futures discussion out of .advocacy, where it drowns >in 90% or so flames; I'm willing to do it iff the >group is moderated; otherwise the flames will just >follow the discussion. Peter says two kids and work I, too, think that c.s.a.futures would be a good idea. And I do realize the problem with flames. However, for a group that could potentially have a fair number of messages, how much of a slowdown would having a moderator be? >> comp.sys.amiga.problems - catch all for hardware and otherwise >> -or- generic software problems. >> comp.sys.amiga.hardware.problems - If you only want hardware problems. While my initial reaction was to just have c.s.a.problems, thinking about it a bit it seems to me that one really should have this split up. After all, in misc and apps one tends to find quite a few software problems croping up. Thus, keeping them split would be helpful, at least to the knowledgeable folk who might be able to answer the hardware problems and not the software ones. Now, the question is, where does one put the problems group for software? Or do we create c.s.a.problems.{hardware|software|programming|???}? The latter is something I don't particularily care for, myself. -=> CAW Christopher A. Wichura Multitasking. Just DO it. caw@miroc.chi.il.us (my amiga) ...the Amiga way... u12401@uicvm.uic.edu (school account)