🚀 go-pugleaf

	There have been no "Nays" as yet to the name change.
The original motion  was to wait until the 24th for final comments.
That date stands.  In the mean time, I'll post the comments -
uneditted except for mailer lines - periodically.

	The only issue seems to be some folks want "comp.arch.parallel.
See Ralph Johnson's message (2/11/88) and my comments.

	Steve
================== Comments throught 2/15/88 =====================

From heh%ulysses@att.arpa Fri Feb 12 14:47:34 1988
Summary: "NO" to restricting the subject matter of this news group

In article <963@hubcap.UUCP>, Steve Stevenson (fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu) writes:
> From johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:09 1988
> 
> While comp.parallel is a better name than comp.hypercube, the best
> name is comp.arch.parallel.  Some might say that parallel programming
> is a software topic, not an architecture topic.  I wish that were
> true, but it isn't.
> 
> 	Ralph Johnson
> 
> [ Comment.  I thought of that, but I think the same argument as
>   we have against "comp.hypercube" apply here.  For example,
>   theoreticians or software engineers might say "Oh, that's
>   machine implementation only."  Our readership spans a wide
>   range of interests.
> 
>   Comments?
> ]
	.
	.
	.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see this news group restricted to
software topics or to architecture topics (nor do I think it should).
I don't see how we can talk about operating systems or restructurers
without including information about architectures.  In fact, in the
field of parallel processing, this point extends to much software at
the application level as well.

I vote to change the name to comp.parallel and to include software and
architecture discussions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Barton <gatech!harvard!ll-xn!harvard!ssd.harris.com!garyb>

Here's my YES vote for comp.parallel.  It is certainly more appropriate than
comp.hypercube.  However, I also think that comp.arch.parallel is even more
appropriate.

I would expect to see postings dealing with all aspects of parallel
architectures, including but not limited to :
	Memory hierarchies
    Array processors and other SIMD machines
    MIMD processor architectures
    Massively parallel architectures
    Processor interconnection schemes
    Software considerations for parallel platforms
    Data flow computers and languages

Thanx.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Gary Barton                             |  ..from the home of the HCX..    |
| Software Development                    | Harris Computer Systems Division |
+-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| garyb@ssd.harris.com                    | 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd.        |
| {uunet,cbosgd,mit-eddie}!hcx1!garyb     | Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33309         |
| {mtune,gatech}!codas!novavax!hcx1!garyb | (305) 974-1700                   |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
===================== Comments to 2/12/88 ===========================
Newsgroups: comp.hypercube
From: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve Stevenson)
Subject: Comments about change of name
Approved: hypercube@hubcap.clemson.edu

From johnson@p.cs.uiuc.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:09 1988

While comp.parallel is a better name than comp.hypercube, the best
name is comp.arch.parallel.  Some might say that parallel programming
is a software topic, not an architecture topic.  I wish that were
true, but it isn't.

	Ralph Johnson

[ Comment.  I thought of that, but I think the same argument as
  we have against "comp.hypercube" apply here.  For example,
  theoreticians or software engineers might say "Oh, that's
  machine implementation only."  Our readership spans a wide
  range of interests.

  Comments?
]
------------------------------------------------------
From: Ehud Shapiro <udi%WISDOM.BITNET@CNUCE-VM.ARPA>
Subject: hypercube ==> parallel

I second the motion.
A point to note: there is a newsgroup called parsym, for parallel
symbolic computation.  I haven't seen much of it lately, but perhaps it should
be united with comp.parallel as well.
        Ehud Shapiro
[
  Comment.  Good suggestion.  I'll check it out when we get at
  bit further on.
]