From: iwj@cam-orl.co.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Re: Splitting comp.os.linux, again Date: 25 Oct 1992 15:05:13 GMT
I hope you'll forgive me for a long post, but there's an awful lot of
filling-in and explaining to do ...
First, a bit of filling-in for those who may be confused about things:
On the 18th of September (in <634.9209181344@pepper.cam-orl.co.uk>) I
posted an RFD proposing the split. Interest was low (on both sides of
the argument), and it was clear that at that rate any vote would fail,
so on the 8th of October (in <1992Oct8.132737.27845@cam-orl.co.uk>) I
suspended the RFD.
Then, on the 16th of October, Pete Chown (pc123@phx.cam.ac.uk)
attempted independently to post an RFD (<1992Oct16.230759.27186@
infodev.cam.ac.uk>), which was rejected by the David Lawrence, the
news.announce.newgroups moderator because of my ongoing RFD, however
his announcement of his RFD still arrived in col.
Pete, presumably like many people, had been away over the summer and
had not seen my posting.
Response to his post has been much more favourable, probably due to a
larger number and different composition of people around now.
What we are doing now:
Pete and I therefore propose to extend the discussion period for
another week or two. Though the guidelines say that after 30 days the
discussion should be taken offline into mail, we feel that if we did
so and then came up with a CFV the majority of the readers would feel
that we had violated their spirit rather than the letter, as most
people would not have seen the original RFD or the discussion.
We have received quite a lot of feedback by mail as well as in the
group, and we have incorporated that into the following revised
proposal, which after a week or two we'll turn into a CFV.
comp.os.linux.announce
Announcements of new software, documentation, FTP sites, etc. FAQ
postings. "Distribution" patches made by the person responsible for a
particular component (eg Linus' kernel patches). Relatively low volume
group. I believe it would not need to be moderated, simply due to the name.
comp.os.linux.help
Where users can go for help and have their questions answered. The
FAQs should be crossposted here as well.
comp.os.linux.bug
Bug reports and patches.
- reports of problems which are definitely bugs in the software or
documentation rather than incorrect
- "me too" postings
- patches, to bugs posted here
comp.os.linux.discuss
Discussions. Arguments. Stuff like this thread and recent threads on
/usr/bin vs /bin etc.
comp.os.linux.misc
Anything that doesn't fall into one of the above groups. No articles
here should be crossposted to any of the other col groups.
Rationale and other issues:
Several people suggested that there should be an X-specific group.
However since then the comp.windows.x.xfree86 RFD was posted (now
comp.windows.x.i386unix) and I expect it to pass when it comes to a
vote, so that point is now moot.
There was the choice of splitting by "application" or "component" (eg
GCC, kernel, etc.) or by "type" (eg bugfix, question, announcement). I
have plumped for the latter because most people would have to read all
or most of the former groups and could get away with just .announce
(if they didn't want to be on the "leading edge") in the latter case.
Fidonet and mailing lists, newsreaders:
Curtis Yarvin (curtis@cs.berkeley.edu, in <1c1997INNetf@agate.berkeley.edu>)
described not splitting because this would inconvenience Fidonet users
as "the tail wagging the dog". I have to agree with him somewhat,
though obviously that doesn't help Fidonet people at all! However I
feel that some technical solution should be found - computers are
here to serve us, after all. Perhaps the 'keywords' line (which noone
uses anyway) could be used to distinguish posts intended for different
groups, and a "fail report" mailed back to the originator if none or
an invalid one was supplied. I don't know myself, but the problem
should be solved technically rather than by drowning thousands of
readers of col worldwide.
The mailing list will either have to be channel-ised (maybe again
based on the Keywords line or some such, or something like the
linux-activists Mail-Net server) or split into several lists. This is
not difficult, and is not a valid objection to splitting the group.
Several people suggested that the "pro-split" people should get better
newsreaders. However this is often not possible. For example, I'm
stuck with rn here, though hopefully I shall have trn at home soon
when I get a feed set up.
People also insist that killfiles will do the trick. I have 100 lines
of killfile for comp.os.linux and it doesn't (yes, I know how to write
killfiles and regexps!). Enough said.
Two final notes on netiquette:
Though this is not normal Usenet practice - normally it should just be
in news.groups - I have posted this to both col and news.groups as col
is a special case and I do not wish to exclude Fidonet and mailing
list subscribers.
Please try to maintain the subject line as-is, so that people who want
can tune out the discussion!
PS I posted this a few days ago but there seem to have been
propagation problems. Apologies if you see it twice.
Ian Jackson, in association with Pete Chown, pc123@phx.cam.ac.uk.
-- Ian Jackson iwj@cam-orl.co.uk ..!uknet!cam-orl!iwj These opinions are my own. Olivetti Research Ltd, Old Addenbrookes Site, Trumpington St, Cambridge, UK; Home: 35 Molewood Close, Cambridge, CB4 3SR; +44 223 327029. +44 223 343398