Subject: Re: newsgroup creation RFD - draft

From: "Brian C. White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 19:21:00 -0400

>                 REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
>         moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.announce
>         moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.install
>         moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.nontech
>         moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.tech
>         moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.changes
> 
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
> three large Debian mailing lists into newsgroups. This is not a Call
> for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.  Procedural details are
> below.

I think having these lists gatewayed to official "big-7" newsgroups is
a good idea.  As per my thoughts on splitting the list, I don't think
"debian-user" should be split into three separate groups.

Over 500 posts a day can come into groups like "comp.lang.c++" with
everything from newbies to experts and it doesn't get split up.  Threaded
newsreaders take up most of the slack, and make it much easier to manage
than your standerd (un-filtered) mail reader.
                                             
                                          Brian
                                 ( [email-masked] )
                                             
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 the difference between theory and practice is less in theory than in practice

---

From: Juri Pakaste <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Sep 1996 12:32:24 +0300

>>>>> "BCW" == Brian C White <[email-masked]> writes:

 >> moderated group comp.os.linux.debian.announce moderated group
 >> comp.os.linux.debian.install moderated group
 >> comp.os.linux.debian.nontech moderated group
 >> comp.os.linux.debian.tech moderated group
 >> comp.os.linux.debian.changes
 >> 

Wouldn't comp.os.linux.distrib.debian.* or something similar be
better? If users of other distributions decide that they'd like to
have newsgroups too, things would be pretty confusing with
c.o.l.{debian,redhat,caldera,slackware,craftworks,yggdrasil,wgs,
linux-ft}.* etc.

 BCW> newsgroups is a good idea.  As per my thoughts on splitting the
 BCW> list, I don't think "debian-user" should be split into three
 BCW> separate groups.

I agree with this. There are probably be many people who would be
able to help newbies, but who wouldn't read debian.install.

And isn't debian-devel the correct place for technical discussion, not
a new list or newsgroup?

-- 
Juri Pakaste/[email-masked]

---

From: David Gaudine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:12:33 -0400 (EDT)

> c.o.l.{debian,redhat,caldera,slackware,craftworks,yggdrasil,wgs,

As opposed to
c.o.l.d.{debian,redhat,caldera,slackware,craftworks,yggdrasil,wgs,
linux-ft}.*
?

Of course the difference is that these would be clearly separated from
{misc,hardware,networking,announce,setup,answers,x}
but that doesn't seem important.

---

From: Juri Pakaste <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Sep 1996 13:43:29 +0300

>>>>> "DG" == David Gaudine <[email-masked]> writes:

 >> c.o.l.{debian,redhat,caldera,slackware,craftworks,yggdrasil,wgs,

 DG> As opposed to
 DG> c.o.l.d.{debian,redhat,caldera,slackware,craftworks,yggdrasil,wgs,
 DG> linux-ft}.* ?

 DG> Of course the difference is that these would be clearly separated
 DG> from {misc,hardware,networking,announce,setup,answers,x} but that
 DG> doesn't seem important.

A matter of taste, I guess. I'd prefer the distribution specific
groups to be labeled as such, so that they would be grouped
together. Of course, most of the distributions I mentioned probably
won't need newsgroups - most of them probably don't even have mailing
lists. But if even a few of them got newsgroups and they were called
c.o.l.<distributionname>.*, it would be harder to locate the groups
there are today among all the new ones.

---

From: Shaya Potter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 15:56:31 -0400 (EDT)

If you think about it, c.o.l is really a misnomer.  Linux is not really 
the operating system.  Debian is the operating system.  Linux is just a 
kernel, that many operating systems have based themselves on because it's 
freely available and it has a lot of support on the net.  

In that light, putting the debian.* groups after c.o.l would make lots of 
sense.  

However, I have thought of something that has bothered me ever since I 
first proposed this idea a few weeks ago.  I remember reading in one of 
the groups that someone hoped that the c.o.l groups would never start 
splitting into distribution based areas, because it would fragmant the 
groups.  I don't know if this is still the widely held belief, but it 
could be, and I do see where that person came from.

Shaya
--
Shaya Potter
[email-masked]