From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: CFV: comp.unix.* reorganization
Followup-To: poster
Reply-To: vote@tct.com
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:37:45 GMT

[ Document created: $Date: 1992/08/17 13:19:36 $ ]

This article is a CALL FOR VOTES on a reorganization of the
comp.unix.* hierarchy.

This reorganization will provide newsgroups for System V Release 3;
for System V Release 4; for all other System V releases; for System
III; and for OSF products, specifically including the OSF/1 operating
system.  It will also provide newsgroups for discussing the use of
UNIX on 16- and 32-bit IBM PC clones, obsoleting the current "sysv286"
and "sysv386" newsgroups.  Finally, it will clarify the name of the
newsgroup for discussing MS-DOS under UNIX.

PLEASE EXAMINE THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL BEFORE VOTING ON IT.

+----------+
| PROPOSAL |
+----------+

Create:
  comp.unix.sys5.r3              System V Release 3.
  comp.unix.sys5.r4              System V Release 4.
  comp.unix.sys5.misc            Other versions of System V.
  comp.unix.sys3                 System III.
  comp.unix.osf.osf1             OSF/1.
  comp.unix.osf.misc             Other OSF products: DCE, etc.

Replace:
  comp.unix.msdos -->
   comp.unix.dos-under-unix      MS-DOS running under UNIX by whatever means.
  comp.unix.sysv286 -->
   comp.unix.pc-clone.16bit      UNIX on 16-bit IBM PC clones (i286).
  comp.unix.sysv386 -->
   comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit      UNIX on 32-bit IBM PC clones (i386, i486).

+-----------+
| RATIONALE |
+-----------+

COMP.UNIX.SYS5.R3: Many vendors have been successful in promoting the
use of System V, and it has become widely used.  System V Release 3
was quite popular -- particularly on the IBM PC platform -- and is
still widely used.  Thus the proposal to create "c.u.sys5.r3".

COMP.UNIX.SYS5.R4: System V Release 4 has been an even bigger success
than SVR3, not only on the IBM PC but also on the Amiga and other
proprietary architectures.  Thus the proposal to create "c.u.sys5.r4".

COMP.UNIX.SYS5.MISC: Older versions of System V are still in use,
however, and there should be a home for discussion of new releases.
Thus the proposal to create "c.u.sys5.misc".

COMP.UNIX.SYS3: Old as it is, System III is also still in use.  There
is currently no home for it.  Thus the proposal to create "c.u.sys3".

COMP.UNIX.OSF.OSF1: The Open Software Foundation (a for-profit
corporation _not_ to be confused with the Free Software Foundation)
has labored to produce Yet Another UNIX, called OSF/1.  OSF/1 really
exists, having been delivered to customers.  Since it is being
promoted by several significant computer companies (IBM, DEC and SCO
among them), OSF/1 is bound to see significant use in future.  Thus
the proposal to create "c.u.osf1".

COMP.UNIX.OSF.MISC: The Open Software Foundation will presumably
produce something called "OSF/2" eventually; such discussions will
need a home in the meantime.  More to the point, OSF licenses pieces
of its technology, such as their Distributed Computing Environment
(DCE), to other vendors.  Thus the proposal to create "c.u.osf.misc".

DOS-UNDER-UNIX: The name of the existing newsgroup "comp.unix.msdos"
is misleading.  Seeing it, some have thought that the group's charter
is "UNIX on hardware that usually runs MS-DOS," or "MS-DOS utilities
that mimic UNIX utilities." Thus the proposal to rename "c.u.msdos" to
"c.u.dos-under-unix".

PC-CLONE.*: The current newsgroups comp.unix.sysv[23]86 mix together
UNIX version and hardware platform.  What home is there for issues
related to using _any_ UNIX on IBM PC clones?  Also, the name
"c.u.sysv386" appears to exclude the 486, but in reality it doesn't.
Thus the proposal to replace "c.u.sysv286" and "c.u.sysv386" with
"c.u.pc-clone.16bit" and "c.u.pc-clone.32bit", respectively.

+---------------+
| VOTING METHOD |
+---------------+

Send votes to the mailbox "vote@tct.com".  Possible ways to address
votes include:

	vote@tct.com
	vote%tct.com@uunet.uu.net
	uunet!myrddin!tct!vote

Each vote must use this form:

======== START VOTING FORM =========
sys5.r3          yes/no/abstain
sys5.r4          yes/no/abstain
sys5.misc        yes/no/abstain
sys3             yes/no/abstain
osf.osf1         yes/no/abstain
osf.misc         yes/no/abstain
dos-under-unix   yes/no/abstain
pc-clone.16bit   yes/no/abstain
pc-clone.32bit   yes/no/abstain
======== END VOTING FORM =========

A valid vote must include a "yes", "no" or "abstain" for EACH proposed
change.  Each proposed newsgroup creation or renaming will stand on
its own.  Why?  First, it fits better with the spirit of the current
guidelines.  Second, I don't want the whole proposal going down the
tubes because of one unpopular change.

I will use a Perl script to tabulate well-formed votes.  I will
examine each vote rejected by the Perl script.  If it is complete and
its meaning is obvious, I will fix it.  Otherwise, I will reply to the
voter with a form message that explains how to cast a valid vote.

+----------+
| SCHEDULE |
+----------+

  1. Discussion:

     The official discussion period began when the first RFD appeared
     in news.announce.newgroups, that is, Friday, 17 July 1992.  It
     ended on Friday, 14 August 1992.

  2. Voting:

     The vote will run through 14 September 1992.

     I will post a second Call For Votes, and possibly a list of
     unreachable return addresses, during the voting period.  When the
     vote is over, I will post the final results.

 3.  Waiting Period:

     I will observe the normal waiting period of five days from the
     time that the final results appear in news.announce.newgroups.
     During this time, people may report lost votes and/or impugn
     the fairness of the vote taker.  :-)

 4.  Consummation:

     After the waiting period, I will issue the appropriate control
     messages to create all new newsgroups and/or new names for
     renamed groups.  About one week later, I will re-issue the
     creation control messages.

If all goes as planned, whatever parts of the reorganization that
pass will take effect by the end of September 1992.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.virtual-worlds,comp.human-factors,comp.graphics.visualization,alt.cyberspace.