Xref: utzoo news.groups:2438 comp.unix.xenix:1426
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: --- Moderation problems with comp.unix.microport ---
Message-ID: <1663@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 2 Feb 88 10:20:24 GMT
References: <389@zap.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 31

In article <389@zap.UUCP> fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes:

>	Now, I understand that every once in a while people stand up
>and complain "I haven't been able to reach the moderator", but since the
>traffic in comp.unix.microport is so low, I assume that it isn't just
>me who is having problems...
>
>	As a quick fix, I suggest un-moderating the group for now
>so that uPort users can once again exchange information, and then if
>we find that the volume (or S/N ratio) in comp.unix.microport warrants
>it, we'll re-arrange for moderation.

I agree. This type of group seems to work well *without* moderation. 

On a second related topic let me reiterate my belief that we would be better
served by having comp.unix.286 and comp.unix.386 groups as opposed to .xenix
and .microport. As a 386 user I have little or *no* interest in reading
anything at all to do with either Microport *or* Xenix on the 286. It has
absolutely nothing to do with me. 

On the other hand even though I run microport 386 system v, I would like to 
keep abreast of the discussion on Xenix 386. If it works better there I'll 
switch.  And in point of fact by the end of the year they should be 
basically one and the same.

So might I suggest that a re-thinking of the .microport group might be in
order.  I vote for comp.unix.386 (un-moderated of course). 


-- 
{ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532