Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!moriarty
From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Call For Discussion: comp.sys.mac reorganization
Message-ID: <15129@fluke.COM>
Date: 23 Feb 90 01:11:47 GMT
References: <38768-repost@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@tc.fluke.COM
Reply-To: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer)
Organization: The John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 74

Taken from my letter to chuq, and offered up for discussion on the renaming
conventions:

-----
I'd vote No on the current slate of proposals, but you're pretty close to a
set of new newsgroups that I'd vote Yes for.  Brief analysis:

>Proposal 1: rename comp.sys.mac to comp.sys.mac.misc. 

No problems at all with this.

>Proposal 2: Creation of comp.sys.mac.os. This will be for discussion of
>Macintosh system software -- the system, finder, multifinder, CDEVs, INITs
>and other Apple and third party Operating System software and its
>extensions.

Two problems with this, one major, one minor.  The inclusion of 3rd party
CDEVs and INITs makes for a fuzzy line between this and comp.sys.mac.appl;
the types of discussions I'd associate as being clearly disassociated from
the other comp.sys.mac groups, i.e. questions, complaints, suggestions about
Apple system software, begin to get mixed with reviews, questions, comments
about 3rd party utilities -- something I'd associate more with
comp.sys.mac.appl.   Stick to strictly Apple-produced system software.

My minor problem with this group would be how much volume it would produce,
but once 7.0 comes out, there should be plenty of room there for it.
Scratch that...

>Proposal 3: Creation of comp.sys.mac.appl. 

Go for it.  Include third party utilities from Proposal two, though.

>Proposal 4: renaming comp.sys.mac.hypercard to comp.sys.mac.appl.hypercard.

I'd hesitate about this structure for two reasons: one, HyperCard
compatibles like SuperCard and Plus are often discussed in this group; I
guess I've come to think of HyperCard less as an application, and more as a
"interface/language for the Mac."  More importantly, it sounds as if much of
HyperCard is going to be incorporated into the System Software in 7.0 and
afterwards.  I think HyperCard is unique enough to keep it's current
designation.

However, this isn't a major item; I wouldn't vote down the entire scheme
just for this.

>Proposal 5: creation of comp.sys.mac.wanted. 

Is there a precendent for this, i.e. a comp.sys.pc.wanted?  This is the kind
of group I could see that is heavily cross-posted to comp.sys.mac.appl or
comp.sys.mac.misc, from the standpoint that the people the posters want to
reach often do not read this type of group; it's success depends on the
number of good Samaritans you have who page through, looking to help.  I
agree that it would be nice to get out the "I'm missing part 5 of XXX on
comp.binaries.mac", but I don't think this group will solve that situation.
As to recommendations for applications, etc., I'd rather have that in
comp.sys.mac.appl, as it spurs discussions of merits and defeciencies of
various applications.

----

In summary, I'd say that if Item 2 were changed to specifications, I'd vote
Yes on this as a format.  I don't really care for comp.sys.mac.wanted, but I
can vote No on that when the individual group vote is taken.  I'm quibbling
with Proposal 4; it's not that important to me one way or another.

                           "You're right, of course.  I'm extraordinarily
                            selfish.  But it has served me so well in the
                            past."
---
                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET:     moriarty@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP:  {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO:        You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>