Re: Proposed group addition

[Mike Pfaiffer <pfaiffer@mts.net>]

Rubywand wrote:

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

<snip>
> >
>  ....
>
>      Perhaps. There would be no problem getting links from our FAQs to such a
> group (or any group working with oldie Macs).  However, I wonder if it is
> proper for Csa2 people to initiate a vote to add a group to the comp.sys.mac
> hierarchy. Seems like that should be discussed some place like
> comp.sys.mac.system.


	I agree about our adding a group to the Mac hierarchy of groups.  It 
would be inappropriate if we proposed it without consultation with the 
members of the existing Mac groups. Then again isn't it inappropriate 
for people who should be getting answers there realising THIS is a 
better group to find their solutions?


> > I like my csa2!
>
>      So do I. 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.


>      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 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.


>      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?


> Rubywand

				Later
				Mike

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Digital Civilization magazine: http://www.digitalcivilization.ca    |
|      http://www.mts.net/~pfaiffer = Mike Pfaiffer (B.A., B.Sc.)       |
|  See my web page before you think about spamming me. I charge cash.   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
----- BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK -----
Version: 3.12
GCS/G/IT/PA/SS d s+:- a? C++ UL L++ W++ N++ o+ K- w(---) O+@ M++@ V PS+
PE !PGP t+ 5+ X R tv b+ DI+++ D++ G e++* h! r-- !y-- UF++
------ END GEEK CODE BLOCK ------