unix-pc rmgroup due next week

Robert L. Haar CS50 rhaar at albert.cs.gmr.com
Wed May 15 22:45:55 AEST 1991

In article <53348 at rphroy.UUCP>, tkacik at hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik
CS/50) writes:
|> In article <100419 at becker.UUCP>, bdb at becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes:
|> |> In article <53168 at rphroy.UUCP> tkacik at hobbes.cs.gmr.com (Tom Tkacik
|> CS/50) writes:
|> |> |In article <100166 at becker.UUCP>, bdb at becker.UUCP (Bruce D.
Becker) writes:
|> |> ||> In article <1991May10.194046.19312 at bagend.uucp> jan at bagend.uucp (Jan
|> |> |Isley) writes:
|> |> ||> |Remember the vote, folks?
|> |> ||> |
|> |> ||> |Per the vote, next week there will be another round of newgroup
|> |> ||> |control messages for comp.sys.3b1 and comp.sources.3b1, followed
|> |> ||> |by rmgroup control messages for the unix-pc groups.
|> |> ||> 
|> |> ||> 	I've decided not to rmgroup these, in
|> |> ||> 	case there's still folks who for some
|> |> ||> 	reason wish to use them, for whatever
|> |> ||> 	reasons they might have...
|> |> |
|> |> |I think that is mistake.  The only reason for using them is to
talk about
|> |> |the unix-pc.  Since that is now done with comp.*.3b1, there is no
reason to
|> |> |keep the groups.  The only use they will get is the occasional pc unix
|> |> |question.  They probably will not get their questions answered, as
|> there will
|> |> |be few people reading those groups.  There are already groups for that,
|> |> |and keeping the unix-pc groups will only confuse those new readers.
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> 	Nevertheless, I've decided that I don't
|> |> 	have the right to interfere with any of
|> |> 	those uses, as inefficient as it may be
|> |> 	viewed by anyone not using them...
|> If you don't, who does?  Somebody should do it.
|> The voting done back in January said that those groups were to be
|> removed at the end of three months.  I know that's what I voted for.
|> They should be removed!

I agree with Tom. Part of what we voted for was the removal of
the old groups once the new ones were established. The fact that
a few confused people misuse the unix-pc groups is not enough
to justify ignoring the vote. 

IMHO, the only valid reason for keeping the unix-pc groups would 
be if there are people who don't get the 3b1 groups yet. Is there 
anyone in this situation?  (.... silence...)

	Bob Haar  InterNet : rhaar at gmr.com 
	Computer Science Dept., G.M. Research Laboratories
DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is
personal opinion, not an official statement of General Motors Corp.

More information about the Comp.sys.3b1 mailing list