CALL FOR DISCUSSION: comp.sys.3b1

[Jan Isley]

I do not recall the discussion ever making it to news.groups... until now.
With guidelines in hand, here we go!

Per the "Guidelines for USENET Group Creation" I have just mailed the
following to Eliot Lear, moderator of news.announce.newgroups.

Requirement 1 is a call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup
to be posted to news.announce.newgroups.  Within a week or so, assuming
that I have met Eliot's requirements, he will make the official posting.

The requirements suggest the CFD be posted to any other groups or mailing
lists at all related to the proposed topic.  This takes care of the two
newsgroups, any mailing lists out there?

The requirements also read, "The Followup-to: header will be set so that
the actual discussion takes place only in news.groups."  I have asked
Eliot to modify this CFD to allow crossposting to the unix-pc groups as
well since I know many of you do not get news.groups.

The guidelines are rather specific about how this process is to proceed.
If there is a *need*, I will post the guidelines here.

The name and charter and moderation are to be worked out in the discussion
period.  If there is no general agreement amoung proponents after 30 days,
the discussion should be taken offline.  I persume that this 30 days refers
to the time after the posting in news.announce.newgroups.  This discussion
has been going on for years.  This should end it for another six months,
one way or another. :-)

Voting *only* follows after said general agreement is reached amoung the
*proponents* of the newgroup.

Okay.  Here is my posting/mail to the moderator.  The guidelines do *not*
say that we have to wait for the *official* posting to get our ducks
lined up.

So let's have it with a healthy discussion. flames > /dev/null.

Jan
--
Issha Zetsumei                        | Jan Isley  jan at bagend
One arrow, then you die.              | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan 

*******

CALL FOR DISCUSSION: create comp.sys.3b1


This has come up once again in unix-pc.general and comp.sys.att.
I can recall at least 4 different long winded discussions over the
years on the pros and cons of merging the unix-pc groups into
comp.sys.att.  These disscusions are usually started by a flame fest
because someone did not want unix-pc articles cross posted to the
comp.sys.att group.  Go figure.

CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Creation of comp.sys.3b1

my recommedations are:

Name:         comp.sys.3b1

Purpose:      Discussion about the 3B1/7300 line of computers.
              To include related Convergent Technologies models.

Unmoderated:  nuff said.


I think the Purpose line pretty well sums up my idea of a charter for
this group.  Now that I have thrown the ball out, I guess that I am 
supposed to start off with some rational reasons why we need comp.sys.3b1.

Well, why not.  There are lots of people out in the world who have 3b1s.
A great many of us would still not have a UNIX computer at home if it were
not for AT&T's marketing failure and subsequent liquidation of this machine.
It is also on the desks of many thousands of AT&T employees.  There is a
large audience for the 3b1 despite the low readership numbers posted for
comp.sys.att and the unix-pc groups.

The unix-pc group and comp.sys.att are the only support many if not all
of these owners are ever going to get.  *I* get mail from AT&T employees
looking for help and information and I have never worked for AT&T :)
Imagine calling SUN tech support and getting the following:

	"what? you need help with your 3/60.  Well, that is not our
	current top-of-the-line model so there is not a soul here that
	knows anything about them?  You really need help?  Okay, give
	me a charge card number and for $150 an hour you can talk to
	someone that maybe can find a manual to read out of to you... etc...

get the picture?  No offense intended to SUN, they give us great support.
Just the first example I could think of.

BUT, you have comp.sys.att and unix-pc you say!  Well, yes and no.
It is getting harder to wade through the 3b2/6300/386 traffic in sys.att.
There are standing offers from myself and many others to offer a unix-pc
feed to anyone who wants to call, and many "backbone" sites do carry it,
but many do not.  There is a large community of 3b1 users in Canada and
Europe that can only get the blessedbyspaf official groups.

WHY NOT comp.sys.att.3b1?

By my reasoning, I am including owners of AT&T sold 7300s, UNIX-PCs, and
3B1s.  And, several models sold by Convergent, the actual designers and
builders of the hardware.  3b1 is a little more generic, easier to type,
and resists the next obvious reorganization war:

comp.sys.att.3b2|6300|386|sx|olivetti|intel|etc...

someone else can take that one on.

WHAT ABOUT THE unix-pc. groups?

They can be left in place as far as I am concerned.  Cross posted to the
new comp.sys.3b1 or not.  I do not see the creation of a mainstream news
group as a reason to dismantle the unix-pc groups.  If they are crossposted
it would only help to speed the distribution.  Sites that do not carry any
of the alternative groups would stop getting bugged by irate unix-pc owners.
Sites that carry both would suffer no loss.  Everybody wins.

WHAT ABOUT unix-pc|comp.sys.3b1.bugs|sources|test|uucp?
There is *not* enough traffic to justify more than one group.
Got some great sources, post them.

SUMMARY

There is a lot of very useful information circulating about these computers
but many people who really need the help cannot get for some very good and
bad reasons.  I feel that comp.sys.3b1 would consolidate this information
and get it to the maximum number of people who could benefit from it.
Unix-pc network folks, I see no need to dismantle our little network.
We are connected, lets just try to help out those who are not.
-- 
Issha Zetsumei                        | Jan Isley  jan at bagend
One arrow, then you die.              | known_universe!gatech!bagend!jan