🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jpalmer-2010951518540001@palmermac.be.com>,
Joseph Palmer <jpalmer@be.com> wrote:
>  [ Second posting notes. ]
>
>   First Posting        October 12, 1995
>   Second Posting       October 20, 1995
>
[...]
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>                     unmoderated group comp.sys.be
> 
>   This is a formal Request for Discussion for the creation of the
>   unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.be.
>
>   This is not a Call for Votes - do not vote now.
>

It may be "formal" in your opinion, but it's invalid!

I assume that you are aware that neither your 1st or 2nd "RFD" postings
are valid because they were not crossposted to the news.announce.newgroups
newsgroup.  I'm not sure how your discussion has been going because I'm
not following it, but you're basically wasting your time because you're
not following the Newsgroup Creation Guidelines.

This proposal will NOT be allowed to come to a vote (ie. a CFV) unless you
go back to square one and begin again, this time following the published
procedures.  You can find those procedures in this newsgroup.  Look for
an article titled "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup".

Thought you'd like to know.
-- 
Bill Aten                   <bill@netagw.com>                   Member of UVV

In article <DGruA3.F4B@netagw.com>, bill@netagw.com (Bill Aten) wrote:

> 
> It may be "formal" in your opinion, but it's invalid!
> 
> I assume that you are aware that neither your 1st or 2nd "RFD" postings
> are valid because they were not crossposted to the news.announce.newgroups
> newsgroup.  I'm not sure how your discussion has been going because I'm
> not following it, but you're basically wasting your time because you're
> not following the Newsgroup Creation Guidelines.
> 
> This proposal will NOT be allowed to come to a vote (ie. a CFV) unless you
> go back to square one and begin again, this time following the published
> procedures.  You can find those procedures in this newsgroup.  Look for
> an article titled "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup".
> 
> Thought you'd like to know.
> -- 
> Bill Aten                   <bill@netagw.com>                   Member of UVV



He's right. I incorrectly sent the RFC to 

   news.announce.newsgroups
                    ^
      not

   news.announce.newgroups

I shall post a new, (hopefully) valid RFD tonight.

J.

________________________________
Joseph Palmer
Director of Hardware Engineering
Be, Incorporated.

>This proposal will NOT be allowed to come to a vote (ie. a CFV) unless you
>go back to square one and begin again, this time following the published
>procedures.  You can find those procedures in this newsgroup.  Look for
>an article titled "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup".

I do not think that the creation of the comp.sys.be newsgroup sould be 
delayed one week because of a simple typographical error. Considering the 
volume of postings in comp.sys.powerpc and other newsgroups on the Be 
computer, cluttering the newsgroup for people who do not wish to read 
about the BeBox, I think a newsgroup should be formed as soon as 
possible. I think the CFV should reflect the fact that a simple human 
mistake was ade, but a mistake that, IMHO, should not delay the creation 
of a comp.sys.be newsgroup.

If a large percentage of people find objection with this, and give *valid*
objections, I will post a RFD in the appropriate newsgroups myself.

Perhaps I could go over to alt.config and see if we can get an alt.sys.be 
real fast, so we have someplace to post until comp.sys.be (or comp.os.be, 
it really makes no difference) comes into being.

-- 
 __ Any opinions expressed in this message are strictly my own, not LLNL's
|  )  __  Jean-Louis Gassée has the courage to define tomorrow's computer.
|-<  /__) see http://www.be.com -- http://www.ifi.uio.no/~stigo/bebox.html
|__) \__  Sam Trenholme <set@oryx.llnl.gov> --- Just another BeBox fanatic

In article <46gpde$1gm@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, set@oryx.llnl.gov writes:
> Perhaps I could go over to alt.config and see if we can get an alt.sys.be 
> real fast, so we have someplace to post until comp.sys.be (or comp.os.be, 
> it really makes no difference) comes into being.

I agree on the urgency of getting comp.sys.be, but it is probably a
bad idea to use alt.sys.be as a transitional group.  Moving a topic to
another newsgroup is always very difficult.  I'm willing to bet that
there will be stray Be postings on comp.sys.powerpc for months if not
years after comp.sys.be is created.  alt.sys.be would just create more
confusion needlessly.

Comp.sys.be will exist by the time the machine is released; I think
that's good enough.  IMHO, the Be traffic on comp.sys.powerpc has
degenerated greatly; there will not be much more useful information
anywhere on Usenet until more people get their hands on the machine.

--
Martin Frankel			mdf@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)933-6191

In article <46gpde$1gm@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, set@oryx.llnl.gov (Sam
Trenholme) wrote:

> >This proposal will NOT be allowed to come to a vote (ie. a CFV) unless you
> >go back to square one and begin again, this time following the published
> >procedures.  You can find those procedures in this newsgroup.  Look for
> >an article titled "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup".
> 
> I do not think that the creation of the comp.sys.be newsgroup sould be 
> delayed one week because of a simple typographical error. Considering the 
> volume of postings in comp.sys.powerpc and other newsgroups on the Be 
> computer, cluttering the newsgroup for people who do not wish to read 
> about the BeBox, I think a newsgroup should be formed as soon as 
> possible. I think the CFV should reflect the fact that a simple human 
> mistake was ade, but a mistake that, IMHO, should not delay the creation 
> of a comp.sys.be newsgroup.


Unfortunately, USENET being an amazingly well working *anarchy*,
railroading past the rules, even for an honest mistake, won't work. There
is no benevolent dictator to smile down and say "ok".

We should just wait it out, for the real comp.sys.be. This is much better
than an alt.be (which would be overrun by people who didn't know what it
stood for), and better than a dozen comp.sys.be.* groups, which might not
be justified. When c.s.b is overloaded, then a split will be justified,
and painless.

-pmb

In article <46gu4v$53j@fido.asd.sgi.com>, mdf@bluedini.asd.sgi.com (Martin
Frankel) wrote:


> Comp.sys.be will exist by the time the machine is released; I think
> that's good enough.  IMHO, the Be traffic on comp.sys.powerpc has
> degenerated greatly; there will not be much more useful information
> anywhere on Usenet until more people get their hands on the machine.

I aggree, I don't want to create an alt. group when it really looks 
like a comp.sys group will be possible in the lull between the storms of
the anouncement and when more developers start to see the machine.

I'm sorry for the mistake, and I have asked for assistance from the 
folks at group-advice@uunet.uu.net, they have pointed out a possible
issue with an employee of Be as the proponent of the group, and the
traditional non-comercial nature of newsgroups. Its possible that
if I were to have continued, many sites might have decided not to
carry the comp.sys.be group.

I have passed the torch to an independant party who will be doing the
honors. I have been told that the error does reset the clock, but
does not incur any other delays. (Phew!)

I'm not sure that it's cricket to try to regain the time, I'd rather
have Be, Inc. concidered a law abiding citizen of the net.

I was _VERY_ confused by the missive I got about the second posting
of the RFC, it took me an hour to discover the error. Jeez.

________________________________
Joseph Palmer
Director of Hardware Engineering
Be, Incorporated.

In article <46gpde$1gm@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, set@oryx.llnl.gov (Sam
Trenholme) wrote:
> about the BeBox, I think a newsgroup should be formed as soon as 
> possible. I think the CFV should reflect the fact that a simple human 

Just let me know when to vote and you have mine. I'm also disappointed
about the error. :-(  I was hoping for a BeBox group by now.

-- 
Maxx Daymon -- mdaymon@rmii.com