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

[Mark H. Weber]

In article <941 at trac2000.ueci.com> das at trac2000.ueci.com (David Snyder) writes:
>Actually the reorganization of comp.sys.att was just a suggestion (for which
>I am against).  Remember people, the discussion is about creating:
>comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1!  The reason for doing this is for improved
>distribution (some of us keep seeing replies to articles when we never saw
>the original), and to keep people from posting (as Jeff so graciously says)
>"Gee, how do I get unix on my ibm.pc?"
>

Yes the original proposal was to create comp.sys.3b1, and I may have gotten
a trifle carried away with expanding the discussion to include the possible
reorganization of comp.sys.att. Creating comp.sys.3b1 does solve the
distribution problem, and gets rid of the "unix-pc" name problems (sorry
Thad, I'm afraid we've already lost the unix-pc name war). However, expanding
the proposal to include a reorganization of comp.sys.att has a number of
additional benefits:

    1) Reduction of cross-posting. With comp.sys.3b1, articles would still
       be cross-posted between comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sys.att.

    2) Centralization of information. If comp.sys.att were reorganized
       as I have suggested, if would eliminate the need for both the
       unix-pc.* and u3b.* groups. Also, the PC63xx mailing list could
       be gatewayed.

    3) Easier for new users to find the group. It would not be obvious
       to a person who picked up a 7300 UNIXPC at a swap meet to look in
       comp.sys.3b1, but she might be look in comp.sys.att.*. A monthly 
       informational posting in comp.sys.att.misc could easily direct her 
       to the appropriate subgroup. This posting could be cross-posted to
       other groups such as comp.sys.m68k to pick up users of related
       Convergent and Motorola boxes.

I'm sort of on the fence about the sources group. If we really need one,
it should probably be called comp.sources.3b1 (or .att.3b1), so that
sites which do not want to get any sources could filter it out. It should
be unmoderated, or very lightly moderated.

It takes a fair amount of work on the part of the vote taker, and at
least some work on the part of all system administrators to set up
a new group. If we are going to go through the effort to change things,
we should go ahead and do the whole job, not just part of it.


-- 
  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