Xref: utzoo news.groups:8006 comp.windows.x:8677 Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!unisoft!peritek!dig From: dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.windows.x Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- splitting comp.windows.x (was: Is it time for Comp.windows.x.bugs?) (LONG) Summary: split comp.windows.x into c.w.x.client, c.w.x.server, and c.w.x.misc Message-ID: <564@peritek.UUCP> Date: 15 Mar 89 04:03:04 GMT References: <14051@bellcore.bellcore.com> <829@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> <14717@bellcore.bellcore.com> Organization: Peritek Corp., Oakland, CA Lines: 97 In article <14717@bellcore.bellcore.com>, gregg@jcricket.ctt.bellcore.com (Victor Scott Gregg) writes: > In article <829@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> Anssi_Porttikivi@cs.helsinki.fi writes: > >Subject: Re: Is it time for Comp.windows.x.bugs? > >I simply can't follow the X group. There is too much traffic. Yet I am > >not interested in subtle details of every aspect of X Window System. > >The biggest problem in reading USENET is sorting out the useful > >information. Thus newsgroups which carry more text than say ten > >messages a day are a pain. > > I asked the same question last month, and received no responses or > follow-up. Perhaps the question didn't get out to a suffcient number of > sites. Also, I didn't crosspost to comp.windows.x. > > Does anyone else who reads comp.windows.x have an oppinion in this? > > Should someone cross post this request to c.w.x ? > > Would anyone volunteer to hold a discussion/vote ? > I agree, comp.windows.x should split it up. I am cross posting this to comp.windows.x to include the entire group since c.w.x readers are the ones this most affects (as opposed to news.groups). I personally don't think the break should be on bugs/not bugs, but on client/server. I think that we should increase the number of groups on the net, making them more specific, and having fewer articles in the group (either this or make the news readers a lot more intelligent). For me, this would make it a lot easier to read the articles/discussions that I am interested in (I do not like to have to hit the n key 10 times to skip a discussion, I would rather type N once or twice). I am currently working on a server implementation, and don't really care about the client related discussions going on at this point. When we have another programmer assigned to X window applications, he would probably be more interested in just the client related discussions. If I end up having to maintain both client applications and server work, it does not cost me anything to have the discussions in two separate groups as opposed to one group, and in fact bundling the client discussions together and the server discussions together would make it a lot easier to go through the group when working on both parts (I am really only capable of doing one thing at a time or working on one problem/project at a time). In looking at subjects for a random 92 articles in my comp.windows.x directory, I could classify 35 client related, 30 server related, and 32 which are not really either. 5 of the 92 I listed as both client and server because they were about problems/questions about the client/server interface. ************** PROPOSAL ************** What I am opening up to discussion is a proposal to split comp.windows.x into comp.windows.x.server, comp.windows.x.client, and comp.windows.x.misc, to correspond with the way X is architected. comp.windows.x.server Discussions about X Window servers comp.windows.x.clients Discussions about X Window clients/applications comp.windows.x.misc Discussions about X Window not fitting into the above two catagories Questions about things like: Looking for would go into comp.windows.x.clients, Looking for X running on a would go in comp.windows.x.server. bugs/bug fixes about certain aspects of X would go to the appropriate newsgroup (server bugs into comp.windows.x.server, client bugs into comp.windows.x.clients, and bugs which affect the interface cross posted to both). Please follow up to BOTH newsgroups (news.groups, comp.windows.x), as the discussion is relevant to both. The discussion period will last until the end of March (2 weeks + 3 days). If the discussion looks like a vote should be called for, I will post voting instructions towards the end of the discussion period, and will moderate the vote. The voting period would be from April 1 through April 15. All votes which come to me or are posted prior to then will be ignored. I will post the results of the vote on April 18th (to allow recovery from taxes and NCGA prep work). If you are going to flame, please do it via E-Mail rather than through news. Dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Gotwisner UUCP: ...!unisoft!peritek!dig Peritek Corporation ...!vsi1!peritek!dig 5550 Redwood Road Oakland, CA 94619 Phone: 1-415-531-6500