Re: Proposed group addition

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Mike Pfaiffer writes ...
> 
> Rubywand wrote:
> 
> > Aaron Heiss writes ...
> >
> >>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Brian Hyer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >  ....
> >
 ....


> >      One way to promote Csa2 is to have active groups.
> 
>         Maybe.
> 
> >      The comp.sys.apple2.comm group is nearly dead. Just from the point of
> > view of service to users, it should probably be scrapped because any Apple II
> > communications question posted there will be unnoticed by most of those who
> > might supply an answer.
> 
>         There is also less need to have a communications group. An FAQ (I think
> there is one already) would be sufficient. Anything else could be asked
> here.

     Yes. That is the way communications questions are currently handled and it works
well.


> 
> >      Renaming the group to comp.sys.apple2.othersys would provide a place for
> > Apple III, oldie Mac, Lisa, and assorted other non-Apple2 old Apple stuff
> > owners to interact and get help. As part of Csa2, the group would be more
> > likely to attract input from persons who actually own the older machines and
> > know something about them.
> 
>         I hate to be picky with someone who's been around as long or longer than
> I have, but

"But"?! 


> I think there is an assumption we should take care of right
> away. If we rename the group to csa2.* this still implies the group is
> for the Apple//. If we leave off the "2" then it wouldn't be so much of
> a sticking point. Isn't the point of the discussion to find a way to
> move non-Apple// posts to a place where the posters can communicate with
> other people with the same type of machines? By sticking with a csa2
> group it would in theory be more of the same.
>

     That there is a new group devoted to Apple III, oldie Macs, Lisa, etc. does not
change the locus of expertise-- i.e. mainly Apple II users. Especially when you
consider the diversity of oldie platforms to be included, within Csa2 is the logical
place for the group.

     As for leaving off the "2" in "csa2", I doubt that we would be permitted to
rename a group in our hierarchy in such a way that it ceases to be within the
hierarchy. And, anyway, it would be difficult to sell such a notion to Csa2 members.
If we rename a group, it will have to be to comp.sys.apple2.-whatever-.



> >      It would cost Csa2 nothing to have the group renamed. In fact, it would
> > be a plus. And getting a comp.sys.*.* group renamed should be easier than
> > trying to create a new group.
> 
>         The only thing it would cost the csa2 group to create a new group would
> be the time and effort. We could rename the group, but to make it
> effective we would have to remove it from the csa2 hierarchy. Wouldn't
> the time and effort put into the renaming of the group be equal to the
> creation of a new one?
> 

     I do not know how difficult it might be to create a new comp.sys.* group. My
guess is that it would not be especially easy. For one thing, a lot of those who
decide to participate in the vote may be non-Csa2 persons who routinely vote against
adding new hierarchies.

     We have renamed Csa2 groups and added Csa2 groups in the past and it was not
especially difficult. And, since most of the participants in the new group are going
to be Csa2 members, it seems to make sense that just renaming an unused Csa2 group is
the way to go.


     Putting the above another way ... if we want to have this new group within
comp.sys.* and we want to control the process of creation, then, very likely, the
group needs to be either a renamed group or a new group within the Csa2 hierarchy. 



Rubywand