Reorganization of comp.sys.att (was: CFD: create comp.sys.3b1)

[Bill Kennedy]

markw at GVL.Unisys.Com (Mark H. Weber) writes:

[ discussion about comp.sys.att.3b1 ]

I agree that Mark's proposal would compartmentalize comp.sys.att, and I
guess I think it's a good thing.  There's 63xx equipment here and a 3B2
so 3B1 stuff gets skipped.  It's neither a nuisance nor a problem because
the volume in sys.att isn't excessive.

[Mark proposes]
>So it looks like the best thing to do is to do a reorganization of the
>comp.sys.att group:
>
>
>    comp.sys.att.3b1    7300's, 3b1's and related CT machines
>                .3b2    Can include the 3b2-clones (3b5, 3b15, 3b20..)
>                .misc   Other stuff

If anyone would like it, I suggest adding comp.sys.att.63xx.  I'm the
coordinator for the AT&T PC63xx mailing list, nearly 200 strong and I
would not object to gatewaying the mailing list into a newsgroup for 63xx
if the net wants it.  I would not gateway the other way because the
folks on the mailing list have steadfastly refused to become a newsgroup.
There is some "light moderation" in that contributions are mailed here
and I do work on each one a little before sending it back out.  What I'm
suggesting is that what is mailed out now also be posted to .sys.att.63xx.
I'm *not* proposing that 63xx be moderated, I've got my hands full with the
contributions we get now.

For those not familiar with the PC 63xx mailing list, it started back in
1986 or so, specifically for the 6300 PLUS.  As models were announced and
discontinued, we expanded it to include 63xx.  We don't handle much 6386,
but some.  There are two parts of it, one for DOS only and the other for
UNIX and DOS both.  I'm frequently complimented on the low signal to noise
ratio but the credit really belongs to the contributors, we don't get
much that isn't pretty good scoop.  The only flames ever submitted were
the ones I authored, blazing at AT&T for some boneheaded thing they did.
Other non-constructive criticism is neither welcome nor tolerated.  That's
why I said we'd only _output_ to the newsgroup if the net wants it.

I'm also not volunteering to propose such a group or conduct discussion/vote
for it.  If there's to be a campaign to reorganize sys.att along model lines,
I am volunteering to gateway the 63xx mailing list if the net wants it.  If
someone wants to champion a reorganization (like Chip Salzenberg did with
the Intel and UNIX groups), I think our stuff might be useful.  There's
another channel into the mailing list and that's from Ed Hopper's BBS in
Houston.  Gasp!  Yes, I said the B word.  It's very technically oriented and
98.9% discussion about AT&T equipment.  We've gotten some invaluable input
from Ed and his BBS.  I would honor contributors' requests to not gateway
their submission but would not filter or throttle any more than I do now.

Volume?  I'm showing 156 contributions to UNIX+DOS and 59 DOS-only in the
last couple of months.  If there's no net.enthusiasm for this, we welcome
any and all to the mailing list, just drop me an email note.  When I know
that we have a working, two-way mail path, you're on.

[ Back to Mark's article ]
>If we split up comp.sys.att as shown above, then we would eliminate the 
>need for both the unix-pc and u3b hierarchies, and eliminate the need
>for all the cross-posting. It would also probably improve the distribution
>reliability for the information that we 3b* drivers need so desperately
>to keep our machines on the road.

I agree, and as our machines age, it becomes even more important.  I think
that's one reason the 63xx mailing list has become as large as it has.
There aren't many places where you can learn some of the arcana of older
or discontinued models.  I'd like to add a suggestion for any new sys.att
heirarchies, and that would be to relax the de facto intolerance for mildly
commercial traffic.  We've saved some of the 63xxers' bacon by sharing
sources for motherboard repairs, power supplies, etc.

That becomes far more important as the original manufacturer distances itself
from the old models.  We don't mind that sort of thing, maybe that's one
reason they want to stay as a mailing list, we don't have to listen to
complaints about commercial stuff (there has never been _one_ complaint and
plenty of "Thanks, I needed that...").  I've found the various for sale
articles here in sys.att very useful, bought a 3B2 PORTS card from one of
them.  I bring this up because if it's right out there in the open before
any reorganization, there is likely to be less growling about it later.

>Mark
>
>-- 
>  Mark H. Weber                   | Internet: markw at GVL.Unisys.COM  
>  Unisys - Great Valley Labs      |     UUCP: ...!uunet!cbmvax!gvlv2!markw
>  Paoli, PA  USA  (215) 648-7111  |           ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw

Perfect example, based on one of Mark's articles, we did and undid a deal
for some 3B2 stuff he got at a swap meet.  Did because it sounded right and
amicably undid because it didn't turn out to be what we had thought.  I think
it's important that we agree to encourage for sale and wanted articles for
the older gear and to discourage criticism of such postings.  If the models
are separated into sub-newsgroups it would save a few presses on the `n'
button.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
              internet    bill at ssbn.WLK.COM   or attmail!ssbn!bill