From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: RFD: how about comp.sys.ibm.pc.advocacy?
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:15:30 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <1993Jan3.204143.15047@ugle.unit.no> nareid@due.unit.no (Helge Nareid) writes:
>Given the current volume in comp.os.os2.misc, a split of the comp.os.os2.*
>groups appears to be highly desirable. A couple of other possible groups
>could also be suggested, since they both would carry quite a bit of 
>traffic - I would like to suggest the following :
>comp.os.os2.drivers - A lot of the traffic in .misc appears to be of
>                      the type "Is there a driver available for my
>		      video card/printer/sound card/cd-rom/etc..."
>                      This traffic is easily separated from the rest,
>                      and would fit neatly into this group.
>comp.os.os2.win-os2 - The question of Windows compatability is not
>                      going to go away in the foreseeable future, so
>                      why not have a group where Win-os2 is discussed.
>And what about :
>comp.os.os2.betas   - IBM seems committed to public beta-testing
>                      programs for OS/2, so why not have group for
>                      discussing the current batch of beta releases ?

All good ideas, but what seems to have worked well in the past has
been adding two new OS/2 newsgroups at a time.  If you try to do more,
you run the risk of diluting the discussion far too much, getting
everyone confused in the process.

I think comp.os.os2.setup really covers the drivers issue, and I think
it would be overkill to have a separate newsgroup.  Applications
running under Win-OS/2 are covered pretty well right now in
comp.os.os2.apps; generic Win-OS/2 questions will, I expect, split
between .misc and .setup.  (I also tend to disagree with you about
Windows compatibility -- this 2.1 beta is most remarkable in the
amount of work IBM has put into Win-OS/2 3.1.)  The .beta (I prefer
the singular) newsgroup sounds like an excellent idea -- two thumbs up
there.

Several people have suggested adding a .bugs newsgroup, but I'm not
too keen on the idea because I think it would be unworkable.  I would
prefer a system where summaries of open APARs are posted to .announce
(so you can keep track of what has been and what will be fixed) and
bug reports go to an IBM netmail address.  The trouble is that as soon
as someone sees a "bug" he/she will rush to report it in the .bugs
newsgroup (or, God forbid, crosspost there), when in fact the question
may simply be a .setup or configuration issue.  In other words, the
gap between what people consider a bug (at least initially) and what
is actually a genuine OS bug (or at least a probable one) is quite
wide.  In that sense, people aren't going to understand what the
newsgroup is really for just by the name, and that's going to cause
problems.

So, in short, I'd like to see:

(1) Pick moderator for .announce (through some sort of
quasi-Democratic volunteer process :-));

(2) RFD/CFV .ver1x (unmoderated), .beta (unmoderated), and .announce
(moderated) immediately;

(3) RFD/CFV .setup, .programmer -> .programmer.misc, and
.programmer.porting (all unmoderated) starting March 1.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy