Removal of unix-pc groups

[Kris A. Kugel]

In article <608 at lock60.UUCP>, mhw at lock60.UUCP (Mark H. Weber) writes:
 . . . 
> I think that part of what's bothering him, and a few others (myself
> included), is the assumption that the creation of a new unix-pc group
> in the comp hierarchy can automatically be linked to a removal of
> the unix-pc.* groups. This network was not created via the mainstream
> group creation procedure. It was built one link at a time, and it'll
> probably have to come apart the same way. If and when the new group
> is established is the time to start local (unix-pc only) discussions
> about removal of the old groups. For myself, I suspect I will continue 
> to accept postings in the unix-pc hierarchy for a quite some time to
> come. I think we need to make sure that the spirit gets transferred 
> to the new group, not just the traffic.
> 
> --
> Mark H. Weber ( mhw at Schuylkill.Canal.Org )           "Schuylkill" (skool' kill)

I think that unix-pc will be a problem when it becomes a "ghost" - 
sites that don't upgrade their sys file automaticly, or regularly,
will list the group as still existing, people will post to it,
and wonder why there's so little followup.  I know I've posted to
groups that didn't make it out of my machine's local group,
(to groups that did make it in), and it was an extremely frustrating
experience before I figured out what was happening.

We have this in unix-pc now, in some places.  If we kill unix-pc,
we should all work real hard to keep it dead.
One labor-intensive, (but effective?) step we could do would
be to change unix-pc groups to be moderated, the moderator
puts appropriate messages into the new group, and send an email
message to each poster explaining the change. 

                               Kris A. Kugel
                             ( 908 ) 842-2707
          { uunet | rutgers | att }!westmark!hico2!kak
                         {daver,ditka,zorch}!hico2!kak
                         internet: kak at hico2.westmark.com