HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: retrac@vesuvius.cs.rice.edu (John Carter)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.arch,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a general fault-tolerance news group?
Keywords: fault tolerance
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:48:43 GMT
Organization: Rice University, Houston

shuford@cs.utk.edu (Richard Shuford) writes:
>momtahan@bnrca (Parham Momtahan) writes:
>>
>> Can anyone tell me if there is a more general news group for
>> fault tolerant computing discussions? 
>
>At present there is no newsgroup in Usenet devoted to the discussion
>of fault tolerance.
>
>While we were discussing the creation of 'comp.sys.stratus', several
>people expressed a desire to see the creation of a related newsgroup.
>The best name proposed was 'comp.arch.fault-tolerant', and its charter
>would be broad enough to encompass systems that are configured for
>"high availability" (the latest buzzterm) as well as systems that are
>designed from the ground up for "hard" fault-tolerance.
>
>Perhaps the time is ripe to issue a Request for Discussion (RFD) on
>the creation of 'comp.arch.fault-tolerant'.  Would one of the folks
>who previously advocated this idea like to take on the task of
>cheerleading an effort to create the group?

I concur that it seems like an appropriate time to create such a newsgroup,
given the increasing emphasis on "high availability" lately, even though it
fails the back of the envelope test of becoming a major topic on an existing
newsgroup.  At least, it hasn't on become a major thread on either comp.arch
or comp.os.research, which would seem to be likely candidates.

However, I'd like to propose that it be called "comp.fault-tolerant" so as
to not appear to be solely for hardware fault tolerance.  If you look
throught the proceedings of such conferences as FTCS (Fault Tolerant
Computing Systems) and SRDS (Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems),
you'll find that there is plenty of work being done in the area of software
related fault tolerance.

-- 
John Carter  -*-  Rice University Computer Systems Lab  -*-  retrac@rice.edu

Thesis hacking Owl, soon to be Ute.  Move over Salt Lake, here he comes!
Xref: sparky news.groups:21623 rec.music.synth:18413
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:49:21 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <1992Nov13.211025.2872@cc.ic.ac.uk> pjc@cc.ic.ac.uk (Peter Churchyard) writes:
>
>As a regular reader of this group (its the 2nd one I read) I was not aware
>of any call for votes or had seen any discussion IN THIS GROUP about the
>name change.

I wouldn't doubt it.  Rec.music.synth has been by far the highest-volume
newsgroup I read, at times reaching 100 posts a day.  In a way, it's
too bad that someone didn't come up with a way of splitting it into
reasonable subgroups.  No doubt there are some folk who read every
article posted here.  However, I'd be surprised if such people were
in the majority.

There /were/ RFD's and CFV's posted in this group, and even a bit of
discussion.  These were a tiny percentage of traffic in the group, though.
And I'll bet more than one netter assumed that "RFD" or "CFV" refered
to some obscure synth module or techique.  ("Reverse Frequency Distorter"
or "Controlling Frequency Voltage", say :-).)  Synth folks use almost as
many acronyms as the military!

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: mark@ve6mgs.ampr.org (Mark G. Salyzyn)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.radio.info -> r.r.amateur.info & r.r.b
Organization: Amateur Packet Radio E-mail Gateway  VE6MGS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:33:29 GMT

fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) sez:
>So this group will have nothing to do with broadcasting?  
I don't know, but isn't r.r.broadcasting moderated already? Doesn't sound
like they need the help ...

>>From my personal opinion, I watch all the rec.radio.* groups, and find
>Including r.r.noncomm + r.r.broadcasting?
Yes, but I do get bored with them :-). These two groups IMHO appear not
to need r.r.info, nor would they appear to want what we propose to
put into r.r.info. However, maybe on closer reading, maybe some of the
informative (broadcast data or FAQish) articles in r.r.b may end up
in r.r.info, want to volunteer as a co-moderator for this?

>Should I be feeling snubbed at this point?
Yes, and you should try to get even! :-}

Ciao, -- Mark Salyzyn
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:33:10 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov4.182116.6695@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov4.200644.8267@cs.hut.fi>
	<1992Nov5.025402.10254@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov5.152018.23335@cs.hut.fi>
	<1992Nov5.212548.569@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Nov6.085409.20064@cs.hut.fi>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: killer@robin.cs.hut.fi's message of 6 Nov 92 08:54:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.085409.20064@cs.hut.fi> killer@robin.cs.hut.fi (Kalle Kivimaa) writes:

   In <1992Nov5.212548.569@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
   >I don't know how concrete you want it, but there are BBS echos to which
   >the group is echoed. The members cannot reply to a call for votes even
   >if they wanted to. Is this good enough for you? 

   I have a vague feeling that this question has been raised before, and
   the consensus then was that those BBS echos are not Usenet per se, so
   it is not a terrible blow to voting guidelines that they are not able
   to vote.

Besides, what do they care about the USENET name for the group?  The
gateway admin is responsible to make the change transparent.

--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:34:43 GMT

In article <96702@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
Kulawiec) writes:
> In article <1992Nov8.221114.5147@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> >In article <96646@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
> >Kulawiec) writes:
> >> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from anyone
> >> objecting to the "Subject" line while the vote was taking place.
> >
> >That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
> >(Circular argument).
> 
> I'm not prepared to conclude that that's the reason that I didn't
> receive any correspondence on the matter, because I don't have any
> evidence for it.

You can't even *try* to see the point here?

> (Other explanations are possible: apathy, agreement
> with the actual subject line, mail failures, and so on.)  I just stated
> the observation as I made it.
>
Sure. And a lot of people that were confused by the subject line didn't  
become part of this discussion until after the fact for the obvious reason  
that we didn't KNOW the topic had come up. You still can't see that?

> I will augment that observation by
> pointing out that at least one of the people who has made numerous
> objections to the "Subject" line after the conclusion of the vote was
> aware of it at least two weeks before the end of the vote (I know this
> because he submitted a vote at that time).
> 
I really wish that individual HAD said something. Perhaps he figured out  
what had happened after the vote. I simply don't know. In any event, lack  
of complaints at the time doesn't mean we can't analyze it now. It most  
likely means that the vote will stand (for me THAT issue was over some  
time ago). But I still think that the underlying problem needs to be  
addressed for future votes.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: rcg@delphi.dseg.ti.com (bob gibbons)
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:34:21 GMT

A strong positive vote for creation. We have been very impressed with
Matlab over the last several years. We have just started using the 4.0
version, and are even more impressed. A seperate newgroup would be very
beneficial.

 
--
Bob Gibbons				Texas Instruments
Internet: rcg@delphi.dseg.ti.com	Dallas, TX
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:34:37 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov10.203619.15086@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <97035@netnews.upenn.edu>
	<1992Nov13.081328.29087@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:13:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.081328.29087@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

   rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
   >Despite numerous requests for this information, you have declined to
   >provide it, to date.  Will you do so now?

   When I was given this information, I was warned that you folks would
   ask me to prove in detail each one. I submit to you that no matter 
   what I say, you will find some way to discredit or disprove that
   fact...whether it makes sense or not. This, therefore, is wasted
   effort on my part. I know it to be true, and that's enough for me. 

Some of us think you're playing the part of the fool, because you are
continuing to attempt to discredit a vote on the basis of evidence (so
far presented) that most posters here don't accept as being sufficient
for such an action.  (Although you have pointed out a possible lack in
the Guidelines.)

   >I'm sorry, but at this point all three points are simply claims made
   >without proof.  I have provided proof for each point that I have been
   >queried on; will you provide similar verifiable proof for the points
   >that you have been queried on?

   Not willingly. 

   In order for me to entertain this discussion in a good way, there would have to
   be the possibility that it would get me somewhere.

   But all you seek to do is to discredit each point and prove me wrong. Fine.
   Tell me why I should coooperate? What do I gain besides being kissed?

If you have further evidence, post it and we'll consider it
rationally, as we have with that presented so far (for the most part,
IMO).  If it's adequate to support your case, we'll discover that.
If not, we'll discover that as well.

Dave, put up or shut up.  Please.  For the good of the net.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:02:18 GMT

In article <7805@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>The relevant content of the proposal would be that someone didn't like the
>result of a fair, open, and properly conducted vote, and was annoying the net
>by insisting on revisiting the issue immediately, in the process, setting a
>terrible precedent.

This is begging the question; whether or not the vote was fair, etc. is
exactly what is in dispute.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:13:31 GMT

In article <BxEsrt.586@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim  
Pierce) writes:
> In article <1992Nov7.212059.2221@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com  
(Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
> 
> >In article <7770@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay  
Maynard)  
> >writes:
> > 
> >> It is as close as we'll ever get to the expressed will of the net.
> >
> >An idea has been proposed that would make it *closer* to the will of  
the  
> >net but you shot it down under the guise of a miniscule increase in  
> >bandwidth usage.
> 
> Eh?  I don't see him saying any such thing.

Here goes:

> In article <1992Nov6.190715.22999@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>  
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
> >Then crosspost it to news.groups. Each rename should involve a clear
> >subject line (e.g. RENAME rec.music.synth -> rec.music.makers.synth),
> >and should be posted separately from other renames. 
> 1) You've completely removed the reason to post it to the
> affected group only: to force folks to read the group.
> 2) You've (in the case of this reorg) quadrupled the news
> traffic, and the mail traffic, to no real gain.
> 

Read #2. Looks like he said it to me. For people that claim to read and  
remember everything of consequence, I'm suprised that you forget so much  
of this thread. 

> I also see quite a favorable reaction to the subject of
> discussing whether the creation guidelines should be modified.  No one
> seems intent on discussing just that, but rather whether the creation
> of rec.music.makers.synth should be held up.
> 

To the contrary - I've said several times that I would like to discuss  
that. That's what I AM discussing.

> (I also don't see anyone explaining why the name would be a *bad*
> one.)

People have - do I have to dig up those posts too? Can't you remember  
them? You MUST have read them.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: judy@valinor.mythical.com (Judy Labovitz)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD rec.equestrian.racing
Keywords: racing
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 10:22:52 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems

Here's another post from rec.equestrain regarding the proposed racing group.

From: karlm@sequent.com (Karl Maerz)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.equestrian.racing
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:13:07 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.

butlet@aix.rpi.edu (Timothy James Butler) writes:
 |Before you all get too high and mighty about disapproving
 |horse racing, just remember that there are a lot of animal rights
 |activists that think any type of riding is abusive.
 |
 | [hypothetical examples of finger pointing]
 |
 |Remember, about your own opinions, there will always be someone
 |that feels your opinion is extreme, and someone else whose opinion
 |is more extreme.
 |

True enough.

However, the question remains: do we want this particular newsgroup,
as proposed, tacked on to rec.equestrian?  

My primary objection to said group appearing here (in the r.e
hierarchy) is the simple fact that it has little if anything
to do with things equestrian.  Unless, of course, one considers
figuring handicaps, maximizing your betting spread, comparing
track facilities, etc., to be fitting topics for an equestrian 
hierarchy.  I don't.  I believe there is a more appropriate
location.

The group as proposed is targeted at *consumers* of the horse 
racing industry, who I suspect have little more than a passing
interest in the equestrian aspects of the thing.

If someone wants a horseracing newsgroup, fine.  No problem.
Just realize the thrust is not equestrian (ie, of or pertaining
to horsemanship).  The thrust is gambling on horse races.  Please 
put this group (if you must have it) in the rec.gambling hierarchy 
where it belongs.

Karl Maerz
karlm@sequent.com

        
   Judith A Labovitz               judy@valinor.mythical.com
                                   uunet!valinor!judy
            I bark, therefore I am.    ---- Rene Descarte's dog.        
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:02:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.214300.3100@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>In article <BxACry.BI2@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim  
>Pierce) writes:
>
>> The very fact that the CFV was crossposted to rec.music.synth was by
>> definition an indication that that group was involved.
>> 
>Evidence to the contrary has been posted.

Oh, *really*?  I eagerly await to hear all about it.

>> >but expecting that level of knowledge of netnews
>> >voting procedures from every interested reader is unrealistic.
>> 
>> Sure it is.  The result?  Those interested readers who don't bother to
>> learn the conventions of netnews will be doomed to fates like this.
> 
>What an amazingly condescending attitude. All we're saying is that the  
>person that posted the RFD's and CFV's should have taken the time to write  
>a subject line that indicated that r.m.s was affected.

Evidence to the contrary has been posted.  Should the subject line
have indicated also that alt.guitar.bass and alt.guitar.tab were
affected?  Readers of those groups have not spoken up to complain.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:23:50 GMT

In article <96625@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
Kulawiec) writes:
> I chose "rec.music.makers.*" because I felt that it succinctly covered
> all of the proposals. I still think that's true.
> 
Unfortunately it didn't come close to implying the impact of the  
proposition. It was however succinct. 

Why not just use "RFD" alone as a subject next time - it will save you  
typing and should be all the clue people need.



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:57:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.113345.27972@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>"RFD". "CFV". Very clear.
>
>Not to Bill Clinton. 

I suppose you have mail in your mailbox from Bill Clinton objecting to
the r.m.s rename vote.

Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:25:48 GMT

killer@robin.cs.hut.fi (Kalle Kivimaa) writes:
>>That's a straw man. The concern here is that those who use a newsgroup are
>>subject to name changes that they do not want. This is, in fact, the issue.
>Can you give concrete indication for this? 

I don't know how concrete you want it, but there are BBS echos to which
the group is echoed. The members cannot reply to a call for votes even
if they wanted to. Is this good enough for you? 

>And if you think that guidelines are broken, start a campaign to
>fix them.

Oh, I intend to. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

           Complete possession is proved only by giving
             All you are unable to give posseses you
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
Subject: Re: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:27:41 GMT


thornley@micro.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>>Moderated discussion groups are a bad idea.  Moderation slows down the
>>flow of conversation, and really is only of value when the topic needs
>>to be enforced.  I haven't noticed much problems with off-topic posts
>>in the r.g.f hierarchy so far.

I agree.  If you're going to discuss *anything* in a newsgroup, it's
simply inconvenient to moderate it.  This undermines your effort to
make it a newsgroup for campaigning by removing control over the
players' actions, which to me illustrates the problem with combining a
discussion group with a moderated gaming group.

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>The problem I see happening is that players will start responding to campaign
>moves in the echo, even though it is forbidden to do so.  Messages such as "Bob swings his tennis racket at the gigantic flaming moose" will compromise the
>echo.  

s/echo/newsgroup
Also, please don't write messages with lines longer than 70-80
characters; it's inconvenient to have to edit your message before I
can read it.

>What is the opinion of everyone else on this issue? The moderation issue is
>certainly an important one.  Can we "trust" readers to follow guidelines?
>We could always have a standerd note to be sent to all players which would
>require them to explicitly state they understand the rules of .campaign
>before they get involved with a campaign.

I disagree with the addition of this newsgroup for many reasons, not 
the least of which is its redundancy.  However, on moderation; whoever
would moderate the newsgroup would necessarily have to be the GM for
all the campaigns, unless he wants the post-to-appearance time to be
*really* slow.  Player moves posted to .campaign would have to go
through the moderator, to the GM for that campaign, back to the
moderator, and then be posted to the newsgroup.  Slowly.  The
moderator would have to basically devote his life to being a mail
forwarding service.  

If it were unmoderated, you would not be able to enforce and should
not expect that people should follow any rules at all.  You also can
not send a standard note to players before they get involved in a
campaign, because what's to stop me from starting a campaign and
recruiting my own players in my own way, and then all of us come and
play in your newsgroup?  If it's not moderated, it's not controllable.

The things you want to put into this newsgroup won't fit together.

-sz