Xref: utzoo news.groups:15802 comp.sys.amiga:46266
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sco!gorn!filbo
From: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Splitting Up Comp.Sys.Amiga--A new idea
Message-ID: <113.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 21 Dec 89 18:20:01 GMT
References: <682@alias.UUCP>
Followup-To: news.groups
Lines: 29
X-Claimer: I >am< R Pentomino!

In article <682@alias.UUCP> Kevin Picott writes:
>Looking at the traffic distribution I would say that the best way to split
>up c.s.a would be to create either c.s.a.d for discussions about the Amiga,
>or c.s.a.questions to answer problems.  (The latter probably makes the most
>sense.)

>What sayeth the net?

The problem with these suggestions is: what is the distinction between
comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.amiga.{questions,discussion}?  Questions
lead to discussion, and vice versa, and what is comp.sys.amiga right now
but a place for questions and discussion about the Amiga?  Put it this
way: what would be left in comp.sys.amiga if all the discussion about the
Amiga went elsewhere?  (Answer: "Xerox sues Apple!!!", unfortunately...)
Adding a .discussion or .questions group would have the effect of
splitting the current traffic into two groups, between which threads
would be >randomly< distributed; with lots of cross-posting between the
two.  I don't think this is desirable.  A spin-off group should have an
unambiguous topic area.

Note: followups directed to news.groups.  Also a reminder that the
discussion period regarding comp.sys.amiga.hardware is in progress in
news.groups (with, however, hardly any traffic on the topic).  The vote
is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 1 through 15, 1990.  DO NOT SEND VOTES
UNTIL/UNLESS THE VOTE IS CALLED.

Bela Lubkin    * *    //  filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us  CI$: 73047,1112 (slow)
     @       * *     //  belal@sco.com  ..ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal}
R Pentomino    *   \X/  Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +408-476-4633 and XBBS +408-476-4945