home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu!jliddle
- From: jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle)
- Subject: Re: A proposal for organizing comp.os.linux. [NEW-CHANNELS]
- Message-ID: <1992Dec13.233705.16117@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:37:05 GMT
- References: <Bz6A6K.HFu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec13.204007.17189@reed.edu>
- Organization: Illinois State University
- Lines: 35
-
- I have been dilligently trying to avoid this, but felt I had to respond to
- this post.
-
- In article <1992Dec13.204007.17189@reed.edu> nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writ
- es:
- >
- >However, if a few of the louder voices on comp.os.linux really wanted
- >to, we could still split comp.os.linux this week. Instead of splitting
- >it according to the normal Usenet voting procedures, split it into the
- >alt groups. Alt groups don't require a vote - a week's discussion on
- >alt.config seems to be sufficient.
- >
- >There are some good reasons not to do this. For one thing, it's fairly
- >sleazy.
-
- This is a very *B A D* idea. It is inappropriate to circumvent usenet
- policies because we disagree with the results. Such a move would be
- very detrimental to the whole climate of the linux community, and would
- be very asocial to boot.
-
- Now please, please, lets keep the bandwidth clean of this stuff 'till
- next May or so.
-
- Jean.
-
- BTW - I have been reading c.o.s (formerly a.o.s) since April. I missed
- the call for votes, as probably did others. Such is life. I am speaking
- as one who probably would have voted for a split, and will do so next time
- this comes up. Nevertheless, it is time for those of us who disagree with
- the results of the last vote to take our lumps gracefully and shut-up.
- --
- Jean Liddle
- Computer Science, Illinois State University
- e-mail: jliddle@ilstu.edu
- --------------------------------------------
-