Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:8067 news.groups:7453
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!beaver.ics.uci.edu
From: nagel@beaver.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.andrew vote report
Message-ID: <7724@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 89 01:21:40 GMT
References: <wXz4=by00Uk4EWXsRJ@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: nagel@beaver.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein)

In article <wXz4=by00Uk4EWXsRJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, nsb+@andrew (Nathaniel Borenstein) writes:

|However, there were also several suggestions regarding the name and status of
|the newsgroup.  Several people suggested "comp.sys.andrew", despite the fact
|that Andrew is not hardware.  Others suggested "comp.env.andrew", despite the
|fact that this would be the only node under a new "comp.env".  Given the lack of
|a consensus on this -- and the fact that only about 10 people suggested any
|change at all -- I think I'd like to stick to my guns; if I called for another
|vote today, I'd still call for "comp.andrew".

How else do you think a new subtopic begins?  Do you think that a new
one springs to existance with dozens of leaves?  Calling it
comp.andrew is similar to comp.risks and such, but that was a
historical accident of sorts.  I still think comp.env.andrew is
the more correct name of the two.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Dept of Info and Comp Sci
ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu              | Charisma doesn't have jelly in the
UUCP: {sdcsvax,ucbvax}!ucivax!nagel  | middle. -- Jim Ignatowski