🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Feb24.034947.10921@rick.doc.ca> andrew@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
>I posted a formal Call for Discussion for "comp.sources.reviewed" to
>news.announce.newgroups (and various relevant groups) back on February
>4th!
>
>I received a grand total of one letter in reply, and have seen no
>discussion of the proposal.  Ironically, my posting suggested that a
>Call for Votes would be issued today.  I was about to give up on the
>idea because of the apparent apathy.
>
>Do people want to discuss it?  Should there be a call for votes?

Here's what I assumed from the current traffic:

  (1) People don't want to discuss it... it was discussed at great
      length under various headings prior to the CFD.  I recall you
      saying that you had sufficient volunteers to run the "..reviewed"
      group.  That alone indicates some interest.

  (2) There SHOULD be a call for votes.  I, for one, will vote yes.
      No matter what one thinks about the performance of other groups,
      it would be good to have more quality source code available.
      I think most of the net will agree.

-- 
Dick Smith				dick@smith.uucp
R. H. E. Smith Corp.			dick%smith@ast.dsd.northrop.com
				soon--> dick@smith.chi.il.us