Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:7895 news.groups:7365
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!cps3xx!rang
From: rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.andrew
Summary: I don't like "comp.andrew".  How about "comp.protocols.andrew"?
Message-ID: <1794@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 89 05:49:14 GMT
References: <0XwSL9y00Uk48LCmxg@andrew.cmu.edu>,
	<8901@mailgw.cc.umich.edu> <IXx7uLy00Uk4MNpXIJ@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP
Reply-To: rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang)
Organization: Michigan State University, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 14
In-reply-to: nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 11 Feb 89 18:42:31 GMT

I think that calling this group "comp.andrew" probably isn't a good
idea, just because it introduces a new hierarchy (setting a bad
precedent).  Would "comp.protocols.andrew", perhaps, be more
appropriate?  What types of issues are being discussed on the existing
mailing lists?
  By the way, I do think a new vote will have to be taken (whether it
"should" or not, there will be too much controvery if it isn't).

		Anton

+---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| Anton Rang (grad student) | "UNIX: blecch."        | "Do worry...be SAD!" |
| Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu |                      |
+---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+