🚀 go-pugleaf

bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:

>In article <40tsbe$e57@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au>,
>Tony Nugent  <T.Nugent@sct.gu.edu.au> wrote:
>>There has been some suggestion about doing this:
>>
>>comp.editors.emacs-gnu
>>comp.editors.emacs-other
>>comp.editors.emacs.xemacs

>This failed the last time a CFV was posted. I'd like to try again.

There *has* been such a CFV along these lines before???  Can I have
details if they are available?  The only archive I've spotted so far
is a failed Jan 92 (?) RFD for a comp.editors.vi group.

>In fact, I think there should be a wholesale reorg, like this:

>comp.editors				General discussion about editor
>					design & use
>comp.editors.announce [mod]		Announcements about new editor
>					revisions, modifications, packages,
>					etc. Traffic should be low enough
>					to cover all subgroups.

>comp.editors.teco			:-)
>comp.editors.vi				Discussion about the Unix VI editor
>comp.editors.tpu			Already handled by the VMS group?
>comp.editors.wordstar

While we are at it :) I would also add:

comp.editors.crisp			discussions about the crisp editor

Apparently they aready have a busy mail list.

Fidonet also has a busy qedit/tse (popular dos editors for dos)
conference, although I suspect that there might not be enough usenet
traffic in a comp.editors.{qedit|tse|semware} group (not at the moment
anyway).

>comp.editors.emacs.misc			Miscellaneous discussion not
>					appropriate for a more focused group,
>					or for minor emacs variants e.g.
>					Freemacs, JOVE, uemacs.
>comp.editors.emacs.gnu			Discussion about GNU Emacs & variants
>comp.editors.emacs.xemacs		Discussion about XEmacs & variants
>comp.editors.emacs.unipress		Discussion about Unipress Emacs

I know what others have said against this sort of thing, and the main
argument has been that there isn't enough traffic (at least in
comp.editors) to support such a split.  This may be right.

But I am attracted to this general idea.  It's logical.  My prediction
is that it will eventually happen - and why not sooner rather than
later?  Perhaps not in this exact split, but this is getting close.
(Dunno about c.e.{teco,tpu,wordstar} :)

The one thing that must happen is for comp.editors to become a part of
usenet proper, and *everyone* agrees with this - a CFV for a (usenet)
comp.editors group (to supersede it's current INET status) is
absolutely sure to get passed relatively quickly and simply - and
unamously.

So let's do it!  I'll start drafting an RFD now, and I'll post a
_draft_ for discussion into comp.editors (only) within 2-3 weeks.

Any subsequent splitup is still a matter of much debate (and timing:),
and will - should! - take more time to develop before another RFD
proposal.

The {gnu.}comp.emacs{.*} people would argue that emacs is more than
just an editor - and of course they are right.  But at it's heart,
this is exactly what emacs is - an editor (and more), and so belongs
in a comp.editors.* heirachy.

[Hey, no flames... can I have a "personal opinion" about this?
Please?   Disclaimer - I don't use emacs, so I'll tread very gently
here :-]

I suppose I should now advocate for comp.editors.tex  :-)

Tony