Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!sco!gorn!filbo
From: filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call for discussion: Amiga Newsgroup Reorganization
Message-ID: <119.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Date: 27 Dec 89 16:18:56 GMT
References: <2625@draken.nada.kth.se> <2564@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US>
Lines: 52
X-Claimer: I >am< R Pentomino!

In article <2564@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> Joel Swan writes:
>I find this an impossible task seeing that we would then have c.s.a.tech AND
>c.s.a.hardware.  Which do you then post to?  Talk about cross posting -- this
>would do it.  I don't think we can divorce talk about c.s.a.hardware and
>a re-naming or re-grouping of c.s.a.tech.  

Joel, most of the people in this discussion agree in principle that
c.s.a.tech should be renamed as c.s.a.programming.  The problem is that
there is NO MECHANISM for doing this.  The guidelines do not cover it,
but that's not important; it can be "read in" easily enough.  But there
is no "rename group" control message.  It would have to be done by hand,
by the individual news managers of all 10000+ sites that carry
c.s.a.tech.

An additional problem is that, as I stated before, a vote is supposed to
be clear and unambiguous; therefore, technically, if someone supports
one change (e.g. create c.s.a.hardware) but not the other (rename
c.s.a.tech), they must vote "NO".  That means that individual changes
should be put to individual votes.

It remains to be seen whether c.s.a.hardware would cause a crossposting
problem.  If it does, you are very welcome to run a vote for renaming
the tech group.  Just, please, keep it separate from other votes.  Wait
a few weeks after the creation (if such happens) of c.s.a.hardware;
then, if it seems necessary, try to rename c.s.a.tech.

>I think the original call for discussion on c.s.a.hardware and ONLY 
>c.s.a.hardware may have been a little bit short sighted.  I cannot keep to
>that one topic.  Changing c.s.a.tech MUST come into play.

I am trying to work within the guidelines.  There have been a lot of
questionable votes recently.  I generally agree with the feeling that
the guidelines should be broadened, etc., but I'd like to keep this vote
strictly by the book.  I particularly do not want to lump together an
easy win (c.s.a.h) with something that will generate considerable
resistance (renaming c.s.a.t).  Considerable resistance?  Many people
will say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  Worse, there may be serious
problems with the mechanics of renaming a group; people may vote against
such a proposal just to avoid the weeks of confusion and software hassle
that would inevitably follow.

>I also support comp.sys.hardware, but only if c.s.a.tech is revamped to keep
>from creating more confusion.

Again, run a discussion/vote later.  I would support it.  The name IS
better, and observing a rename attempt in an active group would be
fascinating.  But please don't insist that it be piggybacked onto the
hardware group vote.

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