From: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu (Mitchell Marks)
Subject: Re: chi Newsgroups FAQ [last mod: 11/6/92]
Reply-To: mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
	<MITCHELL.93Jan3204406@gluttony.uchicago.edu>
	<1993Jan4.050246.23938@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	<1993Jan4.180627.20605@chg.mcd.mot.com>
Distribution: chi
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:38:47 GMT

>>>>> "RH" == Ron Heiby <heiby@chg.mcd.mot.com> writes:

  RH> In article <MITCHELL.93Jan3204406@gluttony.uchicago.edu>
  RH> mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu writes:

  MM> P.S. Could someone at Northwestern post a confirmation if you
  MM> got this over chi.ai?  Thanks.

  RH> This request was responded to by someone at NU.  The problem is
  RH> that it was cross-posted with chi.general.  There's no way of
  RH> knowing whether *any* site receiving this thread actually
  RH> believes in chi.ai because of the chi.general cross-post.

From my limited understanding of news transmission, it seems that Ron
is right about this and the test was meaningless.  In the meantime,
however, Tim Converse (here at U Chicago CS/AI) posted a similar
request-for-reply to chi.ai with no cross-posting, and it drew several
responses from readers at NU.

  RH> As far as the Chicagoland news backbone knows, there has been no
  RH> traffic in chi.ai for years.

At the sites that do see the newsgroup, it has not been _that_ low.
Yes, it's sporadic and generally low-volume, but on occasion we've
found it useful for cross-town communication about AI and cognitive
science events and topics, without the fuss of maintaining mailing
lists. 

  RH> Also, it seems that there are only a handful of people who
  RH> believe in it, and they are all in UofC or NU.  Furthermore, no
  RH> one on the Chicagoland news backbone recalls there *ever* being
  RH> any discussion related to the creation of the group.  Now that
  RH> the "chi" distribution appears to no longer be fragmented, I
  RH> suggest that if someone thinks that there should be a chi.ai
  RH> group, that it should be proposed per the guidelines.

Would it really not be all right to leave well enough alone, albeit
slightly anomalous?  We haven't been trying to force the newsgroup on
any other sites.  And I presume that neither Ron nor anyone else is
approaching this discussion with the goal of killing off the newsgroup
from those sites which currently do find it convenient.  If the
anomaly is truly unacceptable, well then, proceed to a formal
discussion; but is this really necessary?

My original point, in response to the FAQ posting, was about the text
of the FAQ.  If the FAQ maintainer wants to describe chi.ai as an
anomaly, carried by only a subset of the chi-area sites, okay.  But
may I continue to suggest that, at any rate, the speculation that the
group is a typo for a uchi-internal group has by now been cleared up,
and could be deleted from the FAQ?

Thanks,

Mitchell

--
Mitch Marks    mitchell@cs.uchicago.edu
Any two people may be talking to each other, at any moment, in a
civilized way about something trivial, or even something complex and
delicate.  And inside each of the two there runs a kind of dark river
of unconnected thought, of secret fear, or violence, or bliss --
hoped-for or lost -- which keeps pace with the flow of talk and is
mostly neither seen nor heard.  And then at times one or both of the
two will catch sight or sound of this movement, in himself, or
herself, or, more rarely, in the other.  And it is like the quick slip
of a waterfall into a pool, like a drop into darkness.  The pace
changes, the weight of the air, though the talk may run smoothly
onward without a ripple or quiver.  -- A. S. Byatt

Newsgroups: chi.general