c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals

[Chip Salzenberg]

[ Followups to news.groups ]

According to pjg at acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham):
>Is anyone concerned that others will refuse to use c.u.i because
>they find it inappropriate (or believe that their unix source
>license prohibits them from posting to a group called c.u.i)?

I don't think the newsgroup name will be a factor.  After all, if
people realize that comp.sources.unix isn't for proprietary UNIX[tm]
source code, then they should also realize that c.u.internals will
not be a vehicle for trade secret disclosure.

According to jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II):
>How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced
>the name change really was a bad idea?

As for people who think c.u.internals was a bad idea, well, the group
passed its vote according to the guidelines.  Anyone who thinks it
should be renamed is free to run another vote.  I should hope that
administrators will carry c.u.internals in the meantime.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip at tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>