🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr11.170634.14666@telecdn.uucp> alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) writes:
>
>I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups to
>reflect this:
>
>comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia

I think this is a bad idea.  WHile many readers may be into sware-engineering,
others like my self, are not.  Personally, I would not have subscribed since
I would have not glanced at newsgroups starting with comp.software-engineering.

While this is unimportant for those current subscribers, new subscribers may
be confused as to the content of the news group.

There are many of us University folk, who are interested in multimedia
as a classroom tool, but do not want to get bogged down in *too* many
engineering discussions which may occur.

My $0.02 worth.

-- 
Lisa Wolfisch         "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
Laboratory for Computer Mapping and Spatial Analysis, UMCP
lingling@wor.umd.edu
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.

[ Followups to news.groups ]

According to alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney):
>comp.cog-eng --> comp.software-eng.cognitive
>   OR comp.software-eng.user-interface
>comp.groupware --> comp.software-eng.groupware
>comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia
>comp.object -->  comp.software-eng.object
>comp.realtime --> comp.software-eng.realtime
>comp.software-eng --> comp.software-eng.misc
>comp.specifications --> comp.software-eng.specifications

Software engineering is a discipline.  We don't want to put a
newsgroup under comp.software-eng just because the discipline of
software engineering is a tool used by people involved in the given
subject.  Rather, a group belongs under comp.software-eng if it is a
*part* or *aspect* of software engineering.

So I would favor only:

   comp.object         -->  comp.software-eng.object
   comp.software-eng   --> comp.software-eng.misc
   comp.specifications --> comp.software-eng.specifications

-- 
Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service:
         When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm]
     Chip Salzenberg   <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>

Some how I don't think that comp.software-eng. would be a suitable
title for the group.  Although, I am such an engineer, I believe that
this may give an incorrect impression as to the type of conversations
that take place in these groups and, thereby, possibly limit a new
user from participating.  *All software is not developed by
engineering types*.

While some may approach these subjects as software-engineering, others have
definitions of S/W-ENG which would not allow progress in these fields.  If 
you put S/W-ENG in the title, and the discussion wanders to user preferences
or data on human factors/psychology -- here come the flame wars.  Cog-eng,
groupware, multimedia are about more than the latest structured programming
technique.  Even in the computing domain, there is more to these areas than
S/W.  Would we then need a comp.hardware.multimedia.  And looking at some
of the other groups: comp.S/W-ENG.groupware might need a 
comp.sociology.groupware; comp.S/W-ENG.cog-eng might need a comp.biology.cog-eng
and comp.psychology.cog-eng.  

no, No, NO!  comp.S/W-ENG is too parochial a view of the multi-disciplinary
nature of these fields.  Not all of us are comp.sci.  Some of us are biologists
and there are rumors of social scientist and even (don't let it get around) artists
and real designers working in these fields.

NO TANX				ral@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov
 

alex@telecdn.uucp (Alex Laney) writes:
> This is of course,  way out in left field...

No, it's pretty reasonable actually.

> I would like to put forth the proposal to rename the following newsgroups...

> comp.cog-eng --> comp.software-eng.cognitive OR comp.software-eng.user-interface
> comp.groupware --> comp.software-eng.groupware
> comp.multimedia --> comp.software-eng.multimedia
> comp.object -->  comp.software-eng.object
> comp.realtime --> comp.software-eng.realtime
> comp.software-eng --> comp.software-eng.misc
> comp.specifications --> comp.software-eng.specifications

I suggested a similar hierarchy during the discussion period of many of
those groups. The following group could also fit under the same
hierarchy:

comp.sw.components	Software components and related technology.

> Now maybe comp.software-eng could be shortened to comp.soft-eng, like comp.soft-sys.andrew,
> but you get my drift.

How about using the existing comp.sw hierarchy?

	comp.sw.engineering
	comp.sw.cog-eng
	somp.sw.groupware
	comp.sw.multimedia
	comp.sw.object
	comp.sw.realtime
	comp.sw.specifications
	comp.sw.components
	comp.sw.misc

(just a suggestion, in the interest of avoiding COBOL fingers)
-- 
               (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
   `-_-'
    'U`