🚀 go-pugleaf

exushml@exu.ericsson.se (Shyamal Prasad) writes:

>    James> comp.editors.emacs.gnu    Discussion about GNU Emacs

>A lot of us seem to forget that there is a gnu.emacs.* set of groups
>that is just what they are looking for. Why should there be *two*
>different hierarchies for gnu emacs?

Probably because the gnu.* groups are _not_ one of the "big seven" (or
is it now eight? :) usenet groups.  So many sites don't carry them.

The thing that started off this thread in the first place is a desire
to move comp.editors out of INET and into usenet.

Unlike comp.editors, comp.emacs DOS have the privilege of being an
official usenet newsgroup.  To quote from this document:

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.lists/List_of_Active_Newsgroups,_Part_I
(and Part_II)....

========8<-----------cut-here------------>8====================
The following is a list of currently active USENET newsgroups as of
8 Jun 1995.  This list does not include the gatewayed Internet
newsgroups (see below).  The groups distributed worldwide are divided
into seven broad classifications: "news", "soc", "talk", "misc",
"sci", "comp" and "rec".  Each of these classifications is organized
into groups and subgroups according to topic.

"comp"		...
"humanities"	...
"misc"		...
"news"		...
"rec"		...
"sci"		...
"soc"		...
"talk"		...

These "world" newsgroups are (usually) circulated around the entire
USENET -- this implies world-wide distribution.  Not all groups
actually enjoy such wide distribution, however.  Some sites take only
a selected subset of the more "technical" groups, and controversial
"noise" groups are often not carried by many sites (these groups are
often under the "talk" and "soc" classifications).  Many sites do not
carry some or all of the comp.binaries groups.
========8<-----------cut-here------------>8====================

comp.editors is NOT listed as a usenet group (it's an INET group).
That's the point of this discussion.  (The gnu.* groups are also not
part of usenet).

I'm about to draft a RFD ("Request For Discussion") as part of the
process to change this.  A CFV ("Call For Votes") will then be made
and if this passes the change will be made.  Expect to see this draft
soon in comp.editors.

I've deliberately started this thread about splitting up comp.editors
into subgroups, as there are other editor-related newsgroups on the
net and it would seem - on the surface - that it is perhaps a rational
thing to do.  Some agree, others don't.

The idea with comp.emacs and (comp.emacs.xemacs) is to move/rename them
as comp.editors.emacs{.xemacs}, or comp.editors.{emacs-gnu,emacs-other}
or whatever.  It's just an _idea_ at this stage.  I don't use emacs
(haven't had an opportunity)-: and I don't regularly read the emacs
areas, so I don't intent to make such a proposal myself - I'll leave
this for the emacs people to discuss and act on.

I can't see the status of gnu.emacs changing (unless the gnu.* groups
want to join usenet?? :)

Cheers
Tony

BTW, expect some news about a new comp.editors archive site soon! :-)
(And a home page sometime later.  And a new, revamped, comp.editors FAQ).

[Leaving the crossposting alone... it's still relevant to all concerned.]