Proposal on the unix-pc.* and comp.sys.att newsgroup changes

[Bruce Lilly]

(I've rearranged the order of these)
In article <57804 at becker.UUCP> bdb at becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes:
>
>4) we begin to wonder what the fuss was all about, and
>gradually but inexorably come to the conclusion that it
>wasn't a very good idea after all.
>
The classic "bury your head in the sand" approach. This won't
solve the problems of connectivity or of inappropriate postings
from International BM users.

>In article <75436 at iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> templon at copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) writes:
>|[...]
>|Thus it seems to me we have a three choices:
>|
>|3) we propose to call the group comp.sys.convergent.s4 which completely
>|divorces us from at&t and explicitly include the CT people.

Others have proposed other variants not under comp.sys.att, such
as comp.sys.3b1, comp.sys.s4, etc.  The connectivity problem may
improve under this, but some non-backbone sites might still not
carry these groups (I don't carry comp.sys.hp, comp.sys.dec,
comp.sys.ibm, comp.sys.amiga, comp.sys.next, etc. here).

Some have said that they don't want the group under comp.sys.att
because ``AT&T abandoned us, except for some individuals...''  I
don't know if the people in AT&T who have continued to support
the 3b1 are doing so on their own time, or with the support of
AT&T.  Even if they get some minimal corporate support, such
negative attitudes from 3b1 owners are likely to cause that
support to vanish.  I'm sure the 3b1 discontinuation was a sound
business decision at the time, and AT&T should be commended for
the level of support they have continued for such a discontinued
product (compare to other companies).

>|2) we propose to put the new group under comp.sys.att.{3b1,unixpc,7300} and
>|state that we would like to make the new group compatible with any FUTURE
>|reorganization, but we really are only interested in the 3b1 models.  We
>|say 'let the 3b2 owners get their own newsgroup passed.'
>
This sounds nice, but consider that comp.text.dwb recently failed
to pass by 99 to 28 (if I recall the numbers correctly) in favor
of the group, because of the guideline which requires yes votes
to exceed no votes by at least 100.  So in spite of between a 3:1
and 4:1 ratio of yes to no votes, the group failed.  This
proposal was to cover Documenter's Workbench, i.e. troff, grap ,
pic, etc.  An important point is that in spite of the fact that
troff and nroff are widely used (all the UNIX(R) man pages, for
example), apathy prevailed -- with only 127 votes cast it's
virtually impossible to get yes > no + 100.  I wonder how many
votes we'll be able to get for a specialized separate group that
deals only with our machines, if that's the only issue.

>|1) Take on the whole comp.sys.att reorganization NOW.  Put the 3b1 somewhere
>|under comp.sys.att, such as comp.sys.att.7300, comp.sys.att.unixpc,
>|comp.sys.att.3b1.  [ ... ]

This would ensure enough interest to potentially get enough votes
to pass (see above). It's likely to pass as it would permit
removal of the unix-pc and u3b alternate distributions, and would
consolidate everything under comp.sys.att, reducing the need for
crosposting.  But I think comp.sys.att.unixpc is NG, due to the
Int'l BM problem.

>|[ ... ]  We then have a sources group to match in comp.sources.
>|We also propose creation of comp.sys.att.3b2, comp.sys.att.63xx, etc.

I don't think mass creation of many new sources groups will fly.
Let's just deal with comp.sources.3b1 as a moderated group. If
possible, that should be a separate issue from the comp.sys.att
reorganization for the purposes of a vote.  If we don't get the
separate sources group, souce postings could be made in
comp.sys.att.3b1 with an appropriate subject line.

5) Not yet mentioned -- we could propose making unix-pc an
official part of the hierarchy. This hasn't a chance, and
wouldn't solve the crossposting problem. Don't even think about
it.

In summary, I feel that our best shot is to go for the
comp.sys.att reorganization, moving unix-pc into comp.sys.att.3b1
and u3b into comp.sys.att.3b2+ (or comp.sys.att.7300 and
comp.sys.att.3b or some similar variant).  The sources group
should be comp.sources.3b1, moderated, and should be a separate
vote. Anybody want to tackle the CFV?
-- 
    Bruce Lilly, Product Manager,      | bruce at Broadcast.Sony.COM
    Digital Television Tape Recording, | uunet!{sonyusa,vmp}!sonyd1!bruce
    Sony, 3 Paragon Drive, Montvale,   | lilb at sony.compuserve.com (slow)
    NJ 07645-1735  |  Telephone: 1(201)358-4161  |  FAX: 1(201)358-4089