Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3066 comp.unix.microport:1371 news.groups:5207
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jetson!john
From: john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport,news.groups
Subject: Re: I think we have a proposal on our hands (re: intel U**X)
Summary: two-step voting
Message-ID: <109@jetson.UPMA.MD.US>
Date: 22 Aug 88 21:57:48 GMT
References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <62@volition.dec.com>
Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Lines: 52

In article <62@volition.dec.com>, vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie) writes:
> In <1988Aug19.122042.19070@ateng.uucp> chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg):
> #     comp.unix.xenix         Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives
> #     comp.unix.sysv.i286     AT&T Unix System V for the '286
> #     comp.unix.sysv.i386     AT&T Unix System V for the '386
> and   comp.unix.microport     (destroyed)

If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent
within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in
comp.bugs.sys5.

I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future,
when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix
System V for the '386".

Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for
vote two or three naming proposals.  The one that gets a plurality of
votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100
more yes than no votes.  Hopefully, the "losers" of the first vote
will still vote yes for the second vote, so we can present a unified
front to the Guardians of the Namespace.

So, I'd like comments on which naming schemes to include in the first
vote.  There's the one quoted at the beginning of this article, with
or without s/sysv/sys5/, and my favorite:

	comp.unix.i286		UNIX on systems using the Intel '286 CPU
	comp.unix.i386		UNIX on systems using the Intel '386 CPU
	(delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport)

and another popular one:

	comp.unix.intel		UNIX on systems using Intel CPUs
	(delete comp.unix.xenix and comp.unix.microport)

Are there still any other serious contenders, or is everyone
sufficiently happy with one of these to start voting between them?

> I think this means that two people have the same proposal.  Which, in turn,
> makes me want to ask: who wants to collect votes and try to keep track of
> dissenting / alternate opinions?

If there are no serious objections to the two-stage voting process,
I'll collect the votes.  [vix: I'm posting instead of sending you mail
because I want reactions to the two-step proposal.]

Comments?

-- 
John Owens		john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US
SMART HOUSE L.P.	uunet!jetson!john		(old uucp)
+1 301 249 6000		john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net	(old internet)