Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!bionet!ames!lll-winken!uunet!seismo!esosun!cogen!celerity!hobbes!billd
From: billd@hobbes.celerity (Bill Davidson)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION -- splitting comp.windows.x (was: Is it time for Comp.windows.x.bugs?) (LONG)
Message-ID: <269@celerity.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 89 04:04:02 GMT
References: <14051@bellcore.bellcore.com> <829@hydra.cs.Helsinki.FI> <14717@bellcore.bellcore.com> <564@peritek.UUCP>
Sender: news@celerity.UUCP
Reply-To: billd@celerity.UUCP (Bill Davidson)
Organization: FPS Computing, San Diego
Lines: 25
Xref: utzoo news.groups:8226 comp.windows.x:8826

In article <564@peritek.UUCP> dig@peritek.UUCP (Dave Gotwisner) writes:
>**************	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
>

I like the original split idea better because I don't write X stuff
or really even use it much but I do want to keep my software up to
date for those who do use it.  I want to know about all bugs and
fixes and I don't really care about "how to write a widget for ..."
r$ mentioned a very real problem with splitting it at all and that
is the fact that it is gatewayed to the X mailing list (in both
directions I believe).  I also see no need for a misc group when
comp.windows.x would fill that catageory just fine.  How much of the
readership depends on the mailing list and couldn't easily switch
to reading the newsgroup? (by not having news or not getting c.w.x).
Perhaps the mailing list is not that necessary since we have an
actual group for it.
	--Bill Davidson