Attempt at choking the dead horse (comp.sys.att.3b1)

[Bill Kennedy]

In article <1990Dec4.125658.6995 at bagend.uucp> jan at bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>markw at gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) writes:
>
>>In article <75918 at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon at copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes:
[ recent proposal to expand the 3b1 proposal to be a general reorganization
  of comp.sys.att ]

>>to save time and trouble, a single vote could be used to create all of the
>>new groups at the same time: 
>
>no, no, and no.

Hold it Jan.  That sounds like "I don't care that my idea stimulated some
others that might be beneficial to the entire newsgroup, let's stick with
mine".  More below, but I don't think that you should summarily dismiss a
co-proposal that pursues a greater good.  I don't think there is anything
"wrong" with comp.sys.att right now, I've got an `n' button, I can skip over
3b1/7300 things and read 3b2/63xx things.  There's nothing to "fix", but
there are some things to improve.  I think that's where Mark is coming from.
I'm pretty sure that he couldn't care less about 63xx or 3b2, but there
were some murmurings after you made your proposal (apologies if it was
Jeffrey Templon's or someone elses proposal), I think that's what Mark's
talking about.

>>    comp.sys.att.63xx       6300, 6300 PLUS, 6310, 6386
>
>I think you will have a real fight on your hands if you try to put the
>386 unix boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes.

Mark didn't bring that up, _I_ did.  I mentioned that if there was
interest, I would be glad to gateway the 63xx mailing list to a sys.att
subgroup for 63xx machines.  Thus far the reaction from the mailing
list folks has ranged from passive to mild interest.  I thought (and it
was the reason I made the suggestion) that 63xx owners who now throw
an occaisional m'aidez into comp.sys.att might benefit from the collective
wisdom of the people who are already on the mailing list.  Don't blame
Mark for my suggestion and don't suggest that he's headed for peril
"if you try to put the 386 boxes in with the rest of the dos boxes".
We're talking about _AT&T_ boxes, their idiosyncracies and advantages.
I'd be the first to scream if comp.sys.ibm.pc metastasized over to
comp.sys.att.  This is a matter of compartmentalizing comp.sys.att to
better handle discussions about _AT&T_ equipment, not DOS, not 386en;
it's still comp.sys.att.

I'm as willing to withdraw my offer to gateway the AT&T PC63xx mailing
list as I was to make it.  I thought that if there was interest in
having a place for it (to save cycles on your `n' button :-), it would
be for the overall betterment of AT&T system owners.  If anyone thought
I was being pushy and trying to horn in on a 3b1 proposal, please disabuse
yourselves of that notion.  I sort of chimed in because I thought it
would be nice to have a place for 63xx folk, much as the original suggestion
for 3b1/7300 folk.  If it has no appeal, no one need ask me to withdraw,
I'll bolt!

>>Unless someone has a strenuous objection, I'll formulate a Call for
>>Votes and send it off to the moderator of news.announce.newgroups. 
[ ... ]
>
>Well, yes Mark, I do object.  I posted the call for discussion, remember?
>
>No, I am not ignoring your mail, your mail bounces, user unknown.

Hmmm.  I don't seem to be having any trouble reaching him, maybe you
should forward through Pipe Creek, TX.  Sure, you posted the call for
discussion, are you now saying that the discussion that you called for
isn't what you wanted?  I'm confused!  We're going to discuss, but if
the discussion isn't something you like, we're discussing something
wrong?  This is starting to sound like a flame and I must add here that
it most certainly isn't.

I have no objection whatsoever to splitting out 3b1/7300 material into
some other group.  I don't care whether it resides in the comp.sys.att
namespace, some snobbish part of me thinks it should, but I don't care.
I'm a 3b2 and a 63xx person.  I'd like to have a playpen too.  Other 3b2
people suggested a 3b2 playpen, I suggested a 63xx playpen.  Every stitch
of this was stimulated by your call for discussion for a 3b1/7300 playpen.
I think it's time for each of us with a system with a death star on it to
have a place to hang out.

>I have been considering your proposals with great care.  However, it is my
>opinion that there is a consensus for creating the 3b1 group but you have
>really been the only proponent for reorganizing comp.sys.att.

Huh?  Mark didn't make this all up.  Admittedly, a lot happened via email
rather than being posted.  If Mark is guilty of summarizing email into
a posted proposal, so be it.  I helped him do that.  I point this out because
I posted one article, but flew quite a bit of mail back and forth.  I can
certainly see how you could thin he made this all up in a vacuum if you
haven't had reliable connectivity for mail.

>Seems to be a lot of grumbling about "too much noise".  Well, people, this
>is how the process is supposed to work, to give everyone a chance to voice
>an opinion.  That takes time.  I should take time because if it aint done
>right, you will have to live with it for  a long time.  Anyone remember
>comp.unix.wizards?

Thanks for giving me something to hide behind :-)  Seriously, I know that
Mark isn't trying to rain on your parade, he said it to me in terms not
much differently than those.  He wants to make an overall improvement in
the comp.sys.att group, maybe you just want to compartmentalize 3b1/7300
and that's quite all right, it would save me some cycles on the `n' button :-)
You're closer kin to Mark that either of you is to me.  I figure that there
are three architectures here, M68xxx, 321xx and 63xx, but they're all AT&T
(regardless of how we might feel about AT&T).  If we're going to make a
separate group for M68xxx, why not do the others too?  If that's too far
beyond what you had in mind when you called for discussion, then restrict
the discussion to M68xxx, the rest of us won't mind, we're used to it :-)

>I was probably going to post a call for votes this weekend, but if
>everyone is really dying to beat me too it, I cannot stop you.

I don't think that anyone wants to preempt or usurp you, but I did get
a feeling that there was good to be done in addition to what you proposed.

>Jan
>-- 
>Do not suffer the company of fools.  | home jan at bagend 404-434-1335
>Buddha                               | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan 
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM   or attmail!ssbn!bill