Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!ophiuchi!dsill
From: dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Newsgroup Split
Message-ID: <1989Dec22.203641.6471@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 22 Dec 89 20:36:41 GMT
References: <8912221426.AA14382@expire.lcs.mit.edu> <622@codonics.COM>
Sender: news@relay.nswc.navy.mil (News)
Reply-To: Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA
Lines: 60

In article <8912221426.AA14382@expire.lcs.mit.edu>, rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU
(Bob Scheifler) writes:
> 
>     I think some thought should be given to a split ...

Absolutely!

> This is why I think a split is pretty useless.  There are as many theories
> about how to split as there are people asking for a split.  If you think we
> at MIT want to maintain that many mailing lists, think again.

So bag the mailing list idea, already.  What do you think news is for?
Do you really prefer mailing lists to news?  Have you ever used xrn?
Do you *really* enjoy having to maintain the mailing list?

What percentage of xpert/comp.windows.x users receive it by mail?  A
quick check shows that only 101 of the 416 current articles under
comp.windows.x on ark1, the local news server, came from xpert.  Of
those 101 mail-sourced articles, over half (roughly 55) were from the
X Consortium.  So approximately 10% of the postings to xpert/
comp.windows.x came from non-Consortium Internet xpert members.  I'd
suspect that the percentage for readers would be about the same.

Now I realize those 55 articles from Scheifler, Fulton, Swick, et al,
represent a sizeable portion of the total information content of the
group, and I *really* appreciate the fact that they take time out to
tell us "it's fixed in R4" (just kidding, really :-), but I can't help
but feel like they're doing us a disservice by not responding to the
repeated calls to segregate the group.

> I could conceivably be convinced to split xpert into two lists, but I really
> doubt you can get agreement on what the two lists should be.  For example,
> I would prefer to see an xpert vs. xannouncements as the best split.  You
> hackers out there will continue to slog through countless mail messages
> anyway :-), but we're losing people who simply want to track major
announcements
> about X Consortium standards, conferences, books, software, etc.

Okay then, how about:

    comp.windows.x.questions	General questions about X including
    (xquestions)		installation, support, configuration,
				where-to-get-it, when-will-R4-happen,
				are-there-any-PC-X's, etc.

    comp.windows.x.tech		Questions about X programming and
    (xpert)			toolkits, server/client ports, etc. 

    comp.windows.x.announce	Major announcements about X Consortium
    (xannouncements)		standards, conferences, books,
				software, etc.

I really don't think three newsgroups is splurging for a topic the
size of X.  In fact I'm sure we'll need more someday.  And I don't
think it's absolutely mandatory that the X Consortium support the
appropriate newsgroup structure.  It doesn't really take a Bob
Scheifler to handle the generic stuff that would come up in
comp.windows.x.questions.

Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)