Why my proposal stops at c.u.esoterica
Chip Salzenberg
c.u.esoterica. Several people have proposed possible three- or
four-way votes that would expand on my proposal. I have refused.
When asked why I would not expand my proposal, my first off-the-cuff
response was to blame it on the procedure. Peter da Silva has pointed
out, quite correctly, that this excuse is a cop-out:
> "You can't fight here, this is the war room!" -- Rufus T. Firefly.
> What do you think the "official discussion period" is for?
This truth has forced me to re-evaluate my reasons for not expanding
the vote. After some reflection, I realized the real reason:
I ran the comp.unix reorganization vote. I feel that I owe myself to
try to make it work. If c.u.esoterica passes, I will consider the
reorganization to be complete.
So far, the reorganization has created only two problems. The first
problem -- inappropriate postings in c.u.msdos -- is minor, and may
disappear with time. The second problem -- the flap over the word
"internals" in c.u.internals -- will, if anything, get worse as the
litigous atmosphere of the U.S. causes justifiable paranoia in those
who know how Unix works but who fear to post what they know.
(There is also a quantity of complaining from people who have some
sentimental or ego attachment to the word "wizards." This bellyaching
is not a "problem," but a nuisance, and should be ignored.)
So there it is. I'd like to see the word "internals" disappear from
the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <ch...@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
Greg Lindahl
>So far, the reorganization has created only two problems.
There's also the problem that "wizards" is NOT only internals, so
there is now no place for wizardly discussions. You have never
admitted this problem, and by proposing a "rename" to esoterica, you
ignore that you are once again changing the topics that belong in the
group. I can only hope that esoterica includes all things that were
once considered wizardly.
--
"Restraint, hell. I'm just too fucking busy." -- Bill Wisner
Chip Salzenberg
>There's also the problem that "wizards" is NOT only internals, so
>there is now no place for wizardly discussions.
Wizardly discussions always have a place in every newsgroup.
In all the sound and fury surrounding the renaming of c.u.wizards, the
wizardly qualities of knowledge and experience have been emphasized.
But there is one quality of wizards that has seldom been mentioned:
Graciousness.
A true wizard is not only well-informed and experienced. She is also
gracious and generous. She patiently answers questions that lesser
beings might consider to be too "simple" or even "stupid" to bother
with.
Gracious, well-informed, and experienced Unix users -- "wizards" --
are always welcome in all Unix newsgroups. They always have a place.
>You have never admitted this problem ...
There is a problem, but it is not the lack of a "wizards" group. The
problem is the scarcity of gracious wizards in all groups, even the
one with "wizards" in its name.
Greg hopes to find "a place for wizardly discussions." I cannot help
but wonder why the entire Usenet cannot be such a place.
Ed Hall
Judging by the voting results for comp.unix.internals, they are either a
small minority, don't read the group enough to have seen the repeated
call for votes, or feel themselves too important to even bother voting.
I think that renaming the unix-wizards group was long overdue. Its
name was an attractant for those seeking (supposedly) wizardly advice.
Perhaps it should have been renamed comp.unix.wizards.only. Then again,
the term ``wizard'' is far too open to interpretation--I've seen enough
folks who feel they can claim the title the first time they install a
kernel patch. [For those who care, I started hacking the UNIX
kernel in 1978, and have written over a half-dozen device drivers for
everything from card-readers(!) and disk controllers to video and
array processors. I refuse the appellation ``wizard,'' however, as
being too damn ambiguous.]
Comp.unix.esoterica is a *wonderful* name. It describes unambiguously
just what type of posting is approriate. It won't attract neophytes
or egotistic wizard-wannabe's. I might even find time to read it again.
Comp.unix.internals was a mistake. Going back to comp.unix.wizards
would be even more of a mistake.
-Ed Hall
edh...@rand.org
Norman Yarvin
>So there it is. I'd like to see the word "internals" disappear from
>the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
>way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
>further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
You appear to me to be in a minority with regards to this. Perhaps that is
just because I am on the other side.
In any case, for a man who is constantly citing the wisdom of the net, I
don't see your reason for not adding the other votes -- if only to avoid
simultaneous CFDs/CFVs.
Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
discusssions are anything but.
--
Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
"Computer science naturally started with the mathematicians, but it's
becoming more like one of the humanities" -- Larry Wall
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
| discusssions are anything but.
Esoterica is a *perfect* description of what should be in a wizards
group.
================> research on!
Webster's New International, 2nd ed:
- designed for, and understood by, the specially initiated alone.
- confined to a select group.
Webster's 3rd New International:
- dificult to understand (ABSTRUSE)
- of special, rare, or unusual interest
- Partial quote given, "... that demand special training to be perceived
and enjoyed..." John Dewey.
Random House Unabr.
- recondite matters or items (esoterica)
================> research off
Someone said that many people wouldn't know what esoterica meant. I
replaied that those were the people we wanted to keep out of wizards.
I'm beginning to suspect that we were both right.
Now that you know how perfect this term is for the group, I trust you
will turn your full support to the matter.
Chip - feel free to exerpt these for the CFV, I think they are useful
as support for the name.
to the original poster:
You, sir, should add a dictionary to your Christmas list. I hope your
understanding of programming languages exceeds your grasp of English.
--
bill davidsen (davi...@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
Tim Kuehn
>>So there it is. I'd like to see the word "internals" disappear from
>>the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
>>way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
>>further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
>
>You appear to me to be in a minority with regards to this. Perhaps that is
>just because I am on the other side.
Make sure of what you say there - he appears to be in the minority of
those who are POSTING msgs on the subject. Now, as net.guidelines quiet
well make know - it's not the MB or GB (dare I say TB?) of msgs that
get posted on one side or another that matters, but the final outcome
of votes on the subject that counts.
Remember the comp.unix.sco vote? Over 1000 votes tallied, and a simple
majority voted against. THAT was the final vote that counted, not the
masses of discussion/flames/etc. that flew during the CFD period.
So don't go assuming you're in the majority just because of the
amount of KB devoted to a given side of the issue. That means nothing,
it's the final votes that count, period.
>In any case, for a man who is constantly citing the wisdom of the net, I
>don't see your reason for not adding the other votes -- if only to avoid
>simultaneous CFDs/CFVs.
So now it's blackmail/extortion? "Add my proposal or I'll be a jack***
and issue a CFD/CFV to run at the same time yours is?" Bah!
>Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
>discusssions are anything but.
As another netter so well put - go get a dictionary and read what
esoteric REALLY means.
>Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
> "Computer science naturally started with the mathematicians, but it's
> becoming more like one of the humanities" -- Larry Wall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy D. Kuehn TDK Consulting Services "Where Quality is Guaranteed"
ti...@xenitec.on.ca uunet!watmath!maytag!xenitec!timk
119 University Ave. East, Waterloo, Ont., Canada. N2J 2W1 519-888-0766
if no answer 519-742-2036 (w/ans mach) fax: 519-747-0881. Contract services
available in Dos/Unix/Xenix - SW & HW. Clipper, Foxbase/Pro, C, Pascal,
Fortran, Assembler etc. *Useable* dBase program generator under construction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
> (There is also a quantity of complaining from people who have some
> sentimental or ego attachment to the word "wizards." This bellyaching
> is not a "problem," but a nuisance, and should be ignored.)
Spoken like a true technocrat. (I can't believe I'm saying this)
Seriously, huge events have often turned on sentimental attachments. While
you may consider it a nuisance, I don't think it should be ignored.
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180. 'U`
pe...@ferranti.com
Matthew T. Russotto
>A true wizard is not only well-informed and experienced. She is also
>gracious and generous. She patiently answers questions that lesser
>beings might consider to be too "simple" or even "stupid" to bother
>with.
Sounds more like a 'slave consultant' than a wizard. Why do you use 'she'?
From what I've seen, posters to comp.unix.wizards were nearly exclusively
male (maybe the female wizards don't post...)
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@eng.umd.edu russ...@wam.umd.edu
.sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
Stuart Lynne
In article <270897...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>A true wizard is not only well-informed and experienced. She is also
>gracious and generous. She patiently answers questions that lesser
In article <27073D...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>sentimental or ego attachment to the word "wizards." This bellyaching
>is not a "problem," but a nuisance, and should be ignored.)
I wanted to comment on the above two quotes, but found I couldn't without
making it sound like a flame...
In article <27073D...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
>way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
>further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
That sounds good. Now are you willing to be gracious and generous and allow
another volunteer to fold your question into another vote?
Specifically if you are not willing to run an expanded vote and someone else is
will you work within that framework instead of insisting on holding two
elections.
I would be happy to start over with a call for discussion on the following:
1) rename comp.unix.internals to comp.unix.esoterica
2) add comp.unix.wizards
That way we can allow people to vote on both proposals. I'm not trying to
impose my world view on people, just trying to get what I see as a
legitimate proposal added to the ballot. I'll be more than happy to live
with the results.
So far my email is running vastly in favour of my running a second vote. I
do not have any problems with having your question part of it. I will not
campaign against your proposal. I do not view your proposal as mutually
exclusive of mine. I do prefer the original three questions I proposed to
the two above, but that reflects closer your intended ballot.
The ball's back in your court Chip, two call for votes or one. I'd prefer one.
I will run it if you don't want to and no other interested parties volunteer.
Let's keep the flame throwers turned off and have an amicable peaceful
vote.
--
Stuart Lynne Unifax Communications Inc.
...!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) s...@wimsey.bc.ca
Chip Salzenberg
>For a man who is constantly citing the wisdom of the net, I don't
>see your reason for not adding the other votes -- if only to avoid
>simultaneous CFDs/CFVs.
I consider attempts to recreate c.u.wizards a mistake. I now also
consider c.u.internals a mistake. (We knew no better at the time.)
Does anyone presume to attempt forcing me into running a vote for
groups I consider ill-advised?
>Esoterica stinks as a name.
Opinions differ. Of course, anyone who holds this opinion would be
unlikely to run the vote for comp.unix.esoterica.
>Esoteric means uninteresting ...
Dictionaries are wonderful things, you know.
Ronald S H Khoo
> Several people have proposed possible three- or
> four-way votes that would expand on my proposal. I have refused.
> I ran the comp.unix reorganization vote. I feel that I owe myself to
> try to make it work. If c.u.esoterica passes, I will consider the
> reorganization to be complete.
But quite a few people feel that the best way to finish the
re-organisation would be to undo the (as we see it) mistake of including
UNIX-WIZARDS into the original re-organisation -- that seems quite clear
from the discussion. If you were to allow that in your vote, and it
were "finished" like that once and for all, wouldn't it be more
satisfying ? If the vote went against for a second time, then OK fine,
forget it. But I think that most of us feel that some kind of mistake
was made originally. You would too or you wouldn't be conducting
another vote. Discussion seems to throw up enough supporters for a
reversal. I think it would not be fair not to allow one. IMHO if you
aren't prepared to allow that, you should defer the conducting of the
vote to someone who is.
PS I'm not a unix.wizard, nor do I play one on TV, but I enjoyed reading
their newsgroup. I don't think it really belonged together with the
rest of the comp.unix heirarchy. Occasionally tradition is a good
thing, and here's one place where I think it should be allowed to rule.
MHO.
PPS Nothing personally agaist you, Chip. I have great respect for the
contributions you make to the net. I do think that you are wrong
in this issue, but I would ask you not to hold that against me.
--
ron...@robobar.co.uk | +44 81 991 1142 (O) | +44 71 229 7741 (H) | YELL!
"Nothing sucks like a VAX" -- confirmed after recent radiator burst!
Hit 'R' <RETURN> to continue .....
Chip Salzenberg
According to russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto):
>In article <270897...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>A true wizard is not only well-informed and experienced. She is also
>>gracious and generous. She patiently answers questions that lesser
>>beings might consider to be too "simple" or even "stupid" to bother
>>with.
>
>Sounds more like a 'slave consultant' than a wizard.
People of real stature need not be slaves to be helpful.
>Why do you use 'she'?
A better question is, "Why not?"
Gary Heston
>>So there it is. I'd like to see the word "internals" disappear from
>>the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
>>way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
>>further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
I don't think the change is necessary, and haven't seen any proof that
the word "internals" is a real problem, but I think Chip is handling
this quite correctly. He's stated a possible change, it's being discussed,
and will be properly handled at voting time. I consider there to be no
question that there is sufficient interest to hold the vote....
>You appear to me to be in a minority with regards to this. Perhaps that is
>just because I am on the other side.
Probably your second sentence is right. I'm sure Chip has a copy of the
voting results from the c.u.* renaming that he can send you, which will
give you real numbers about the people who voted for creating c.u.i and
removing c.u.w. I think you'll find the vote passed, and the people who
lose a vote are generally considered a smaller group than the winners,
which makes you and your cohorts the minority.
>In any case, for a man who is constantly citing the wisdom of the net, I
>don't see your reason for not adding the other votes -- if only to avoid
>simultaneous CFDs/CFVs.
I think Chip is willing to let the wisdom of the net decide on his proposal.
As he said, someone else can run another CFD/CFV cycle. I imagine he's
had his fill for a while.
>Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
>discusssions are anything but.
From _Websters New Collegiate Dictionary_, 1977:
[ punctuation and pronunciation info left out ]
esoterica esoteric items
esoteric 1a: designed for or understood by the specially
initiated alone <a body of ~ legal doctrine--
B. N. Cardozo> b: of or relating to knowledge
that is restricted to a small group. 2a: limited
to a small circle <~ pursuits> b: private,
confidential <an ~ purpose>
If you believe the "wizards discussions" don't fit the above definitions,
then we don't need the group at all. In view of the behavior exhibited
by the c.u.w-reinstatement proponents, including yesterdays' improper
newgroup (which I immediately canceled on this site), I don't want to
become one, no matter how much I learn about UNIX. I don't want to be
associated with people who act like that.
I'm sure that all you wizards out there can figure out how to create
your own wiz.* net, convince your site admins to carry it, and set
the directory permissions to keep the newbies from bothering you.
Go ahead, and quit trying to force the rest of us to comply with
your collective egos.
--
Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager
SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers)
"The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I
regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.
Peter da Silva
(a) Do whatever you want with comp.unix.internals.
(b) Remove the aliasing .wizards->.internals.
(c) Let .wizards be an inet group, and let Erik worry about it.
Chip Salzenberg
In article <270897...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>A true wizard ... is gracious and generous.
In article <27073D...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>sentimental or ego attachment to the word "wizards." This bellyaching
>is not a "problem," but a nuisance, and should be ignored.
I obviously failed the "gracious" test on the day I posted the second
quoted article. Sigh.
I admit that many of the complaints about c.u.wizards have ticked me
off. Of course, no one is perfect: "Only the mediocre are always at
their best." Nevertheless, there is no excuse for losing one's
temper. I apologize to all proponents of restoring c.u.wizards.
As for Stuart's request that the c.u.esoterica and c.u.wizards
proposals be merged, I must respectfully decline.
Let me emphasize that I am not opposed, in principle, to combining
multiple votes for expediency. That's what the reorganization of
comp.unix *was*, after all. My reason for declining is a result of
the basic conflict between the two proposals.
1. I think it obvious to everyone that we do not need both
c.u.esoterica and c.u.wizards. Their charters overlap almost 100%.
2. Unless I am mistaken, the guidelines do not provide for one vote
both to determine a group's name and to prove support for its
creation. This issue came up during the sci.aquaria discussion, but
it was never resolved.
For these reasons, I cannot agree to fold the c.u.esoterica proposal
in with the c.u.wizards reinstatement proposal, no matter who collects
the votes.
Incidentally, there is a technical problem with attempting to
reinstate c.u.wizards. I am concerned that even a few sites that
alias c.u.wizards to c.u.internals could prove to be a serious
nuisance. However, this issue is separate from the question of vote
combination.
>Let's keep the flame throwers turned off and have an amicable peaceful
>vote.
With this sentiment I heartily agree.
Dave Armbrust
>In article <26...@cs.yale.edu> yarvin...@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>>ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>So there it is. I'd like to see the word "internals" disappear from
>>>the comp.unix hierarchy. The vote to rename it to "esoterica" is my
>>>way of finishing the job I started with the reorganization vote. Any
>>>further adjustments will have to wait for another volunteer.
>>
>>You appear to me to be in a minority with regards to this. Perhaps that is
>>just because I am on the other side.
>
>Make sure of what you say there - he appears to be in the minority of
>those who are POSTING msgs on the subject. Now, as net.guidelines quiet
>well make know - it's not the MB or GB (dare I say TB?) of msgs that
>get posted on one side or another that matters, but the final outcome
>of votes on the subject that counts.
So include in the call for votes an option to bring back c.u.wizards.
If the majority do not want c.u.wizzards back the vote will fail.
>Remember the comp.unix.sco vote? Over 1000 votes tallied, and a simple
>majority voted against. THAT was the final vote that counted, not the
>masses of discussion/flames/etc. that flew during the CFD period.
I had ran c.u.sco vote myself and that was total different then
what we are talking about here. In that case it was not a name
issue, rather it was an issue over wheither the group should
be formed at all. We let the vote determin this issue, lets
let the vote determin the issue on bringing back comp.unix.wizzards also.
>So don't go assuming you're in the majority just because of the
>amount of KB devoted to a given side of the issue. That means nothing,
>it's the final votes that count, period.
So let vote on it, period.
>>In any case, for a man who is constantly citing the wisdom of the net, I
>>don't see your reason for not adding the other votes -- if only to avoid
>>simultaneous CFDs/CFVs.
>
>So now it's blackmail/extortion? "Add my proposal or I'll be a jack***
>and issue a CFD/CFV to run at the same time yours is?" Bah!
No, you are missing the point. The ONLY reason for simultaneous
CFD/CFV is that chip is not willing to entertain the idea of bringing
back c.u.wizzards. Do not read me wrong here, I do not want a
simultaneous CFD/CFV, I want chip to include in his proposal
an option to bring back c.u.wizzards so that we do have a chance
to vote.
>>Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
>>discusssions are anything but.
>
>As another netter so well put - go get a dictionary and read what
>esoteric REALLY means.
I also think esoterica stinks as a name. I do know what it means.
I still do not like it. It is a better name then c.u.internals
and I beleive that the majority will perfer any name over
c.u.internals because of the legal issue. The majority
would vote for 'gizzards' if that was their only option. I also think
that c.u.wizzards is better. I have read all the postings
on why c.u.wizzards is a bad name. I have read all the postings
on why c.u.esoterica is a good name. In the end I still like
c.u.wizzards better. If it does not get included in the vote I will
be forced to vote for c.u.esoterica.
I can understand chips reluctance for doing more then he already
has done. He has just gone through a major vote for the
reorganization of c.u.unix. He is probably still 'shell shocked'
over this vote. He probably want to be done with the whole mess.
When chip ran the c.u.unix reorganization he did listen to what
was being said. He made revission to his proposal to follow
the opions of others. He did not try to force his ideas of
how the reorganization on us. He followed the guide lines.
Today we are seeing a different chip. He is not using the CFD
period as it should be used to refine his proposal. If he
does not want to do this then he should let someone else
do it. He had to eat some 'humble pie' to admit that
c.u.internals is a bad name. May be bringing back c.u.wizzards
is more 'humble pie' then he want to stomach.
I do not want to attack or discourage chip. I think he has
done a great job for all of us and I want to thank his for
this. I think that once chip really thinks about it he
will come around in 'fairness' and include the c.u.wizzards
in the vote.
Dave Armbrust | uunet!pcssc!dma
PC Software Systems | d...@pcssc.com
2121 Cornell Street | Phone: (813)365-1162
Sarasota, FL 34237 |
Jay Maynard
>It would seem that the intent of the discussion period is to come to an
>agreement on the names and charters of proposed new groups. Chip is
>unwilling (up to this point in time) to do this. If he does not want to modify
>his proposal I would suggest he shelve his vote until he or someone else can
>come up with a consensus of opinion as to what the proposal should be.
Chip is only unwilling to do this to those people who aren't willing to accept
the results of the reorganization vote. Face it: The net has spoken. It said
that c.u.wizards needed to be renamed. It was renamed. I believe that the
intent of the guidelines is that the subject not be brought up for 6 months.
Any attempt to do so, or to force Chip to do something he feels is against the
expressed consensus of the net, is little more than sour grapes.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"It's a hardware bug!" "It's a +---------------------------------------
software bug!" "It's two...two...two bugs in one!" - _Engineer's Rap_
Greg Lindahl
>Face it: The net has spoken. It said
>that c.u.wizards needed to be renamed. It was renamed.
No, comp.unix.wizards was *destroyed*. Discussions in
comp.unix.wizards included things which are NOT internals.
Wm E Davidsen Jr
| It would seem that the intent of the discussion period is to come to an
| agreement on the names and charters of proposed new groups. Chip is
| unwilling (up to this point in time) to do this. If he does not want to modify
| his proposal I would suggest he shelve his vote until he or someone else can
| come up with a consensus of opinion as to what the proposal should be.
By this you mean he won't agree with you about the name. That's what
votes are for. We took one. Comp.wizards was voted out. Chip is taking a
vote on his proposal, and you idea is not a refinement of his idea, it
changes it completely. Post your own CFD and take a vote to create
wizards if you think that by they are like bluebirds and will come back
if you build them a home.
I'm about ready to take a vote on removing every damn comp.unix group,
because the whiners won't stop complaining since they lost the vote.
Chip is taking a vote on his proposal, your change is not a "friendly
ammendment," it is a complete change.
And while we're at it, I thought that after a group was voted down
that no one was supposed to call for a vote on it for six months.
wizards was voted down. Give it a rest.
Stuart Lynne
>In article <1990Oct03.0...@xenitec.on.ca> ti...@xenitec.UUCP (Tim Kuehn) writes:
>>In article <26...@cs.yale.edu> yarvin...@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
}No, you are missing the point. The ONLY reason for simultaneous
}CFD/CFV is that chip is not willing to entertain the idea of bringing
}When chip ran the c.u.unix reorganization he did listen to what
}was being said. He made revission to his proposal to follow
}the opions of others. He did not try to force his ideas of
}how the reorganization on us. He followed the guide lines.
}Today we are seeing a different chip. He is not using the CFD
}period as it should be used to refine his proposal. If he
}does not want to do this then he should let someone else
}do it. He had to eat some 'humble pie' to admit that
}c.u.internals is a bad name. May be bringing back c.u.wizzards
}is more 'humble pie' then he want to stomach.
Thank you Dave, for being a little clearer about this than I have been.
A very appropriate posting followed the one quoted above.
} GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION
}
}REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION:
} These are guidelines that have been generally agreed upon across
}USENET as appropriate for following in the creating of new newsgroups in
}The Discussion
}2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated
} or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be
} determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
} on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days
} of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead of
} news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among
} themselves. Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made,
} going back to step 1) above.
It would seem that the intent of the discussion period is to come to an
agreement on the names and charters of proposed new groups. Chip is
unwilling (up to this point in time) to do this. If he does not want to modify
his proposal I would suggest he shelve his vote until he or someone else can
come up with a consensus of opinion as to what the proposal should be.
The guidelines are very specific that there should not be a move into the
call for votes until a general agreement on the format of the proposal is
attained.
I believe there is a general consensus that we need to replace
comp.unix.internals. There have been suggestions such as:
a) comp.unix.esoterica
b) comp.unix.arcana
c) comp.unix.wizards
d) comp.unix.gizzards
e) comp.unix.wizards.only
f) comp.unix.wannabe-wizards
I have proposed that the vote take the form of either asking yes/no on
several proposed names, or to ask for a choice of names. I prefer that
former suggestion because I believe that esoterica and wizards might
actually end up having different "charters" and users. I would not be
opposed the latter proposal choosing one name from among several.
I would and do oppose vigorously any attempt to take the current proposal
to a vote.
I am willing and able to work with Chip and run the vote in any format that
satisfies him as long as the choices are fairly presented. I am willing to
defer to anyone else who wants to run the vote in that manner.
I am not willing to sit by and watch someone dictate their own desires when
there is an large group of people who are not happy with the idea.
Applied Magnetics
Here's a small step toward achieving consensus during the CFD.
*** I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING CHIP SAYS. ***
So there.
As a relative newcomer to USENET, my special interests are:
1) finish the reorganization of c.u.* and be done with it;
2) stabilize the name of c.u.e or c.u.i or even c.u.w, so I
know which one to read;
3) keep the traffic down in news.groups.
I don't know if the lawyer-baiting danger is real or imagined. I don't
know if the newbie-baiting effect of `wizards' is real, but I see many
complaints to that effect. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
`esoterica'. Chip went through a lot of trouble running the
reorganization; if he wants to draw the line on an endless discussion,
I'm with him. We'll vote, c.u.i will or will not become c.u.e and
we'll turn the page.
Perhaps someone else will take the burden of re-creating wizards. Then
the news.groups traffic will shoot up again, there will be a call for
votes, we'll vote, and we'll see.
--Pierre Asselin
R&D, Applied Magnetics.
Norman Yarvin
>2. Unless I am mistaken, the guidelines do not provide for one vote
>both to determine a group's name and to prove support for its
>creation. This issue came up during the sci.aquaria discussion, but
>it was never resolved.
The guidelines are in fact quite specific on this:
|2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated
| or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be
| determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement
| on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days
| of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead of
| news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among
| themselves.
So, if Chip is going to restrict the proposal to a single group (seems like
a good idea to me), there had better be agreement on the name. For that
matter, when do our 30 days of flames end?
I might as well explain what I meant by "esoteric means uninteresting". I
was not, as many thought, trying to define esoteric. I was referring to the
impact of having in the group name something that indicated that the group
was for specialized/rare knowledge, without indicating in any way what type
of knowledge this was (other than being about Unix).
I contrast this with comp.unix.wizards, which does attempt to define what
should be the contents of the group. (those matters of concern to
wizards.) Is it agreed that wizards would be a better name for the group
were it not swamped by people who inappropriately post?
Now perhaps a broad "go away if you don't already know what the group is for"
is the right thing, but on the other hand is it really a good idea to
obfuscate the namespace? Security by obscurity, anyone?
--
Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
"In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane" -- Mark Twain
Richard M. Mathews
>I believe there is a general consensus that we need to replace
>comp.unix.internals.
This may be your belief, but until there is a vote we don't know if that
is really the consensus. With Eliot Lear's posting in which he says that
a LAWYER said that the name of the group has no legal standing, one of
the major reasons for changing the name has been weakened (with just one
lawyer's opinion, I won't say the reason has been eliminated).
>I would and do oppose vigorously any attempt to take the current proposal
>to a vote.
I absolutely agree with this. There is great disagreement about the
issues a vote should cover and the form a vote should take. There have
also been some good comments recently about the need for a 6 month waiting
period before taking another vote on a newsgroup. If the proposed vote
is taken I strongly suspect that more than 50% of the voters will be
unhappy with the result no matter which way the vote turns out. Let's
drop this discussion. Let's come up with a new proposal. Let's cool
off a bit;-). Then let's try again.
Richard M. Mathews D efend
Locus Computing Corporation E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
ric...@locus.com I ndependence
lcc!ric...@seas.ucla.edu
...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard
Eliot
While the name might not have anything to do with legalities, as Chip
said, it is the perception that the name could hold some less informed
individuals back from posting that is relevant. I'm not sure whether
its a bad thing, though ;-)
--
Eliot Lear
[le...@turbo.bio.net]
Stuart Lynne
>period before taking another vote on a newsgroup. If the proposed vote
>is taken I strongly suspect that more than 50% of the voters will be
>unhappy with the result no matter which way the vote turns out. Let's
>drop this discussion. Let's come up with a new proposal. Let's cool
>off a bit;-). Then let's try again.
Sounds fine too me. Either come up with an acceptable proposal or cool it
for awhile (i.e. leave c.u.i as is).
When someone comes up with a suitable proposal that everyone can agree to we
can get that one to the voting stage. Chip's current proposal does not have
a general consensus. He should amend or withdraw.
Mark M Mehl
>. . . general consensus . . . to replace
>comp.unix.internals. . . . suggestions . . .:
>
> a) comp.unix.esoterica
> b) comp.unix.arcana
> c) comp.unix.wizards . . .
> e) comp.unix.wizards.only . . .
>I have proposed that the vote take the form of either asking yes/no on
>several proposed names, or to ask for a choice of names. I prefer that
>former suggestion because I believe that esoterica and wizards might
>actually end up having different "charters" and users.
So can someone _please_ post _separate_ charters for:
comp.unix.esoterica and
comp.unix.wizards
so we know what the issues (and differences--if any) are surrounding
these two group proposals. Exactly what purpose will the NEW
comp.unix.wizards group serve that the other existing comp.unix.*
groups fail to serve now--including comp.unix.esoterica (or
internals, whichever passes)?
There's a lot of postings discussing the NEW comp.unix.wizards
group, but none seem to address what the content of the NEW group
should be and how it "fits" in--or compliments--the existing
comp.unix.* groups. It's impossible to have a scholarly discussion
on the comp.unix.wizards issues if we don't know what the issues
are to begin with. Please post a charter for c.u.wizards and
c.u.esoterica so serious discussion can begin.
Also, a couple postings suggested bring back comp.unix.wizards for
"old-time-sake". This is *foolish*; you'll have to do better than
that. Please be realistic.
--
/\ Mark M Mehl, alias Superticker (Supertickler to some)
<><> Internet: me...@atanasoff.cs.IAstate.edu
\/ UUCP: {{mailrus,umix}!sharkey,hplabs!hp-lsd,uunet}!atanasoff!mehl
Disclaimer: You got to be kidding; who would want to claim anything I said?
Kent Paul Dolan
>ric...@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>>period before taking another vote on a newsgroup. If the proposed vote
>>is taken I strongly suspect that more than 50% of the voters will be
>>unhappy with the result no matter which way the vote turns out. Let's
>>drop this discussion. Let's come up with a new proposal. Let's cool
>>off a bit;-). Then let's try again.
>
>Sounds fine too me. Either come up with an acceptable proposal or cool it
>for awhile (i.e. leave c.u.i as is).
>
>When someone comes up with a suitable proposal that everyone can agree to we
>can get that one to the voting stage. Chip's current proposal does not have
>a general consensus. He should amend or withdraw.
Why do I get this impression that the proponents of bringing back c.u.w
specialize in bogus reasoning? I suppose because it is so obvious so
consistently.
Chip's proposal doesn't _have_ to have a general consensus; that is what
the vote is for. Why hold a vote if the conclusion is preordained?
If you go back and read the guidelines, they are quite specific:
"a general consensus among the _proponents_ of the group",
emphasis mine.
Now aside from Chip, the remaining confessed "proponents of record" of the
change to comp.unix.esoterica are Bill Davidsen and I, both of whom wrote
articles in favor of the name ".esoterica" before the _previous_ vote was
taken (by about 36 hours, which is why the change didn't get in).
Personally, I now hate the idea.
Things have turned into a struggle between
. the wizard-wannabes who are puling about losing the same group name
they were earlier whining was a rotten choice because it caused the
group to be overrun with newbie postings, on the one hand; and
. the rest of the net, who discussed the problem (giving the w-ws
every chance to pipe up "But my lawyer says...!", which the w-ws
failed to do) and then solidly voted c.u.wizards _as_a_name_, out
on its ass.
Now in a perfect universe, the name c.u.internals would stay, the infants
who have replaced black cats with lawyers as a focus of superstition would
be afraid to post there, removing their constant ego trips and mutual stroke
parties from impeding the business of the group, and the net would go on
about its business an improved place.
This is a less than perfect universe, the howling of the spoiled brats
(Doesn't the net have a large surplus of us?) has convinced poor, gullible
Chip that he has to change a perfectly acceptable name (As Eliot's actual
consultation with a lawyer confirmed, and as I and several others posted
earlier, article content, not group name, is all that matters legally.),
and so the "too little too late" suggestion of a change to c.u.esoterica
Bill and I earlier espoused is now on the table for discussion.
As far as the upcoming vote Chip is running is concerned, that is
_all_ that is on the table: whether the net should cave in to blatant
falsehoods, posted here as if they were truths by those who knew better,
out of purest malice and spite, that the name "internals" causes a
legal problem, and change this perfectly acceptable name to another,
better name, "esoterica".
Little as I like cooperating in such a debacle, and much as I hope that
the vote is so resounding a *HELL NO!* that the fools proposing a
reversion to "wizards" finally see the light and quite their idiot
yammering for attention; for the purposes of getting this vote underway,
I want to take this opportunity to _formally_ support the change to
"esoterica", making the three "proponents" unanimous.
Chip, call the question whenever you are ready.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a newsgroup heirarchy to reorganize.
Peter, shall we continue? I liked most of what you posted.
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xant...@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xant...@well.sf.ca.us>
--
And if anyone thinks they can join as a "proponent" of a _name_
_change_ _to_ "esoterica", and then oppose that name, I refer you
to your own professional hairsplitter/ambulance chaser for advice.
Michael P. Deignan
>I consider attempts to recreate c.u.wizards a mistake.
Instead of standing on your soapbox preaching to the rest of it, why not
let the readers decide whether it is a mistake or not?
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. --
-- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 --
-- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 --
-- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
John F. Haugh II
>According to russ...@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto):
>>In article <270897...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>A true wizard is not only well-informed and experienced. She is also
>>>gracious and generous. She patiently answers questions that lesser
>>>beings might consider to be too "simple" or even "stupid" to bother
>>>with.
>>
>>Sounds more like a 'slave consultant' than a wizard.
>
>People of real stature need not be slaves to be helpful.
Right, but people of real stature also have real jobs, SO's, laundry,
and a host of other obligations. There is a limit to the amount of
"gracious and generous" someone is able to dispense when the questions
continue to be of the RFTM form. In a sense, the ease with which one
posts to USENET is the greatest problem with USENET. It is too easy
to post a simple question and wait for the response.
In theory, any regular follower of c.u.wizards should be able to answer
any of the basic questions that come cruising by in c.u.questions. But
just as in the real world, you don't walk up to the chairman of Ford
Motor Company and ask him how to start your car - of course he knows the
answer, but then so does your owners manual.
>>Why do you use 'she'?
>
>A better question is, "Why not?"
At least this is something we can agree on. People of real stature
know that 'she' should be just as likely to be the pronoun of choice
as 'he'.
--
John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!"
-- Ken Thompson
Ed Hall
> . . . . . With Eliot Lear's posting in which he says that
>a LAWYER said that the name of the group has no legal standing, one of
>the major reasons for changing the name has been weakened (with just one
>lawyer's opinion, I won't say the reason has been eliminated).
I wish we knew just what basis the lawyer used to come to that
conclusion. I'm sure the rules would differ depending upon whether
a newsgroup name were considered analogous to a book title, a
product name, an alias, or whatever. Who knows what a court would
decide? Given the ongoing software patent debacle, I'm not sure any
of us can predict. We are in uncharted waters
Perhaps some lawyer needs to consider the scenario where someone on
the net actually posts trade secrets (i.e. UNIX internals) to
comp.unix.internals. Would the group's name be a factor in any
ensuing legal case? Could its name be construed to imply conspiracy
to violate such trade secrets? Would other sysadmins be more likely
to be subpoenaed in such cases and/or their systems confiscated or
shut down?
My own non-lawyerly suspicion is that any newsgroup can be named
anything we want so long as it isn't obscene, libelous, or
infringing on someones trademark or copyright. But that doesn't
mean the name makes no difference should additional legal factors be
put in play.
-Ed Hall
edh...@rand.org
Karen Valentino
>In article <2709D9...@tct.uucp> ch...@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Does anyone presume to attempt forcing me into running a vote for
>>groups I consider ill-advised?
>Yes. The idea of a vote is not to decide if your idea is the best, but to
>decide what the net wants to do. Don't confuse your own ambitions and goals
>with what should be done.
I see things differently. The purpose of the voting process on Usenet is
for a person who has a vested interest in creating a newsgroup to put
forth his idea and try to get it to fly by convincing others of its
usefulness. He has the option to modify his proposal based on the
feedback he gets, and usually there's a lot of yelling and screaming if
someone is perceived as ignoring consensus. But there is no requirement
that anyone run a vote on something for which he's not a proponent. I
think what you write above is judging Chip by your own standards, not
by existing Usenet etiquette.
>If you hold your vote I
>guess I could just hold another one asking if people would like to remore
>comp.unix.esoterica and add comp.unix.wizards because I don't like your group
>and I'd like mine.
I don't know if you're serious in suggesting it, but actually this idea
of yours follows Usenet practice more closely. It might be difficult to
carry out, though. What I'd do in your place is to see first whether
c.u.e. passes, and if it does, by what kind of a margin. If I saw lots
of dissent based on c.u.e.'s vote, then I'd be more likely to "run
against" c.u.e. If c.u.e. passes by a wide margin, I'd learn to love the
word "esoterica."
This looks like a good place for me to express my own love of the word.
Karen
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North Computer Graphics R/D <> Sebastopol, CA
ka...@everexn.com uunet!everexn!karen ..well!fico2!everexn!karen
The trick is not to get what you want; it is to want what you get.
Karen Valentino
>Now perhaps a broad "go away if you don't already know what the group is for"
>is the right thing, but on the other hand is it really a good idea to
>obfuscate the namespace? Security by obscurity, anyone?
The point that you seem to be missing is that not everyone shares your
viewpoint about the label "esoterica." I don't see it as obfuscatory at
all. I see it as a wonder of clarity--a good descriptor for a newsgroup
designed for that small group of people who know far more than most of
us about the obscurities of the Unix OS and who want to talk about them.
Laird J. Heal
different aim than the other.
We have been told that the "original" comp.unix.wizards is long dead;
it appears that the effort is to stamp out the _current_ comp.unix.wizards
rather than to erect any monument to its predecessor.
Any effort to put a newsgroup "of limited interest" is really at crossed
purposes with the otherwise open book of Usenet. If you can find a majority
of 100 people favoring a newsgroup, expect to find 100 eager contributors.
The object should be to encourage readership rather than contributorship,
as rn so aptly reminds me each time I post - I could have taken that little
nudge out when I compiled it, but I decided it was appropriate.
Because of the apparent bankruptcy of the charter of the replacement of
comp.unix.wizards, and to this date nobody has advanced anything better
than what was there before. Apparently, when the swell of opinion was
moving against their judgement, the proponents began to argue that once
newsgroup was voted upon, a six month hiatus was appropriate before its
revival, resuscitation, or discussion.
Crossposting and atopical articles creep into every unmoderated newsgroup.
I do my share of mailing blatant offenders, who usually respond either with
a flame back or an apology - it is just a matter of learning to use this
shouting gallery. Each newsgroup should be framed, however, not to
discourage participation, but to encourage readership. If wizards want a
private discussion, they certainly should know how to set one up. If they
feel they are an esteemed clique, they should realize that the vast number
of readers here who get the most benefit from the newsgroups are not such
initiates.
Let the people decide - don't try to shout down a swell of opinion with a
few strong voices.
Attributions follow, which you may already have read
In article <27...@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davi...@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
>
>| Esoterica stinks as a name. Esoteric means uninteresting, and wizards'
>| discusssions are anything but.
>
> Esoterica is a *perfect* description of what should be in a wizards
>group.
> - designed for, and understood by, the specially initiated alone.
> - confined to a select group.
> - dificult to understand (ABSTRUSE)
> - of special, rare, or unusual interest
>
> Someone said that many people wouldn't know what esoterica meant. I
>replaied that those were the people we wanted to keep out of wizards.
>I'm beginning to suspect that we were both right.
>
> Now that you know how perfect this term is for the group, I trust you
>will turn your full support to the matter.
>
> Chip - feel free to exerpt these for the CFV, I think they are useful
>as support for the name.
>
If you want an unpopular newsgroup, you will be wizards indeed to couch
it here. If you want to keep the noise-level down, I suggest you exercise
a little moderation. Otherwise, do what will serve the largest number of
readers in this public forum.
Laird J. Heal
>s...@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>>ric...@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) writes:
>>When someone comes up with a suitable proposal that everyone can agree to we
>>can get that one to the voting stage. Chip's current proposal does not have
>>a general consensus. He should amend or withdraw.
>
>Why do I get this impression that the proponents of bringing back c.u.w
>specialize in bogus reasoning? I suppose because it is so obvious so
>consistently.
To the contrary, many postings seem to have been typed in once and then left
hanging out to dry - i. e. not wrung out. It takes longer to read over and
"debug" your reasoning, though, and it is not for everyone.
>
>Chip's proposal doesn't _have_ to have a general consensus; that is what
>the vote is for. Why hold a vote if the conclusion is preordained?
>
>If you go back and read the guidelines, they are quite specific:
>"a general consensus among the _proponents_ of the group",
>emphasis mine.
>
This point is very well taken! However, Chip himself made reference to
"unless I hear any objection" to which others asked if his ears were open.
>
>Things have turned into a struggle between
>
>. the wizard-wannabes who are puling about losing the same group name
Could you agree that there are some "wizard-wannareads"?
>
>. the rest of the net,
I did miss the first discussion, but I remember other types here. Some
lawyers, even.
>
>This is a less than perfect universe, the howling of the spoiled brats
>(Doesn't the net have a large surplus of us?) has convinced poor, gullible
>Chip that he has to change a perfectly acceptable name (As Eliot's actual
>consultation with a lawyer confirmed,
>
I am glad you included yourself in the surplusage. In a democracy of brats
there is necessary catering to overenthusiastic novitiates.
>
>And if anyone thinks they can join as a "proponent" of a _name_
>_change_ _to_ "esoterica", and then oppose that name, I refer you
>to your own professional hairsplitter/ambulance chaser for advice.
Perhaps you should edit your articles before you send them after all,
or are you including yourself with "us" again? (I mean, do you really
mean it?) This article earlier expressed opposition, unless I misread.
Ed McGuire
> So, if Chip is going to restrict the proposal to a single group (seems like
> a good idea to me), there had better be agreement on the name.
I agree with Chip's proposed name.
> I was referring to the impact of having in the group name something that
> indicated that the group was for specialized/rare knowledge, without
> indicating in any way what type of knowledge this was (other than being
> about Unix).
>
> I contrast this with comp.unix.wizards, which does attempt to define what
> should be the contents of the group. (those matters of concern to wizards.)
That doesn't define the type of knowledge any better.
> Is it agreed that wizards would be a better name for the group
> were it not swamped by people who inappropriately post?
No.
> Now perhaps a broad "go away if you don't already know what the group is for"
> is the right thing, but on the other hand is it really a good idea to
> obfuscate the namespace? Security by obscurity, anyone?
`unix.esoterica' does not mean "the group with an obscure topic," it
means "the group whose topic is UNIX obscurities." Far from
obfuscating, it very well describes what the group will discuss.
What you are really asking for, Norman, is a name which better
describes the intended audience, not the intended content. That is a
good point. My response is that most other groups identify the
intended topic, not the intended audience, in the group name.
Characteristically, the latter is addressed in flames directed at
inappropriate posters. 8-}
--
peace. -- Ed
"Vote. Because it's the Right Thing."
Don Lewis
>Incidentally, there is a technical problem with attempting to
>reinstate c.u.wizards. I am concerned that even a few sites that
>alias c.u.wizards to c.u.internals could prove to be a serious
>nuisance. However, this issue is separate from the question of vote
>combination.
This is the reason that I support bringing back c.u.wizards. I suspect
the reason for a lot of the inappropriate triaffic in c.u.internals is
because of the combination of:
Sites which did not rmgroup c.u.wizards
Users at the above sites who post inappropriate articles to c.u.wizards
Sites which alias c.u.wizards to c.u.internals
If we create c.u.esoterica and the c.u.wizards gets aliased to it, then
we will still have a problem with inappropriate content. The cure is to
create c.u.wizards and c.u.esoterica, nuke c.u.internals, and undo all the
aliasing. Of course, the charter for c.u.wizards should reflect its new
ghetto status.
--
Don "Truck" Lewis Harris Semiconductor
Internet: d...@mlb.semi.harris.com PO Box 883 MS 62A-028
Phone: (407) 729-5205 Melbourne, FL 32901
Ed McGuire
> When someone comes up with a suitable proposal that everyone can agree to we
> can get that one to the voting stage.
Since when did everyone have to agree before a vote could be taken?
All that is wanted is a general consensus. My impression is that most
who favor a change support Chip's proposal. That spells "general
consensus" to me. I hope to see Chip call for a vote soon.
Norman Yarvin
>> Is it agreed that wizards would be a better name for the group
>> were it not swamped by people who inappropriately post?
>
>No.
Huh? So wizards was the wrong name for the group from day one?
>`unix.esoterica' does not mean "the group with an obscure topic," it
>means "the group whose topic is UNIX obscurities." Far from
>obfuscating, it very well describes what the group will discuss.
Ok, but that and wizards are not the same thing. I thought this was
renaming, not destruction. I read the old group, and would prefer renaming
to destruction. But I think there is no good alternative name.
>What you are really asking for, Norman, is a name which better
>describes the intended audience, not the intended content.
Or rather, describes the intended content through the preferences of some
group of people. This is an extremely loose definition, but IMUHO it is
still the best one around. I tend to agree with Greg Lindahl here: wizards
don't just discuss obscurities, wizards don't just discuss internals; the
only real way to preserve unix.wizards is to keep the name.
--
Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
"Praise the humanities, my boy. That'll make them think you're broadminded!"
-- Winston Churchill
Ed McGuire
> So wizards was the wrong name for the group from day one?
It is the wrong name now.
Jay Maynard
>don't just discuss obscurities, wizards don't just discuss internals; the
>only real way to preserve unix.wizards is to keep the name.
OK, I give up. What, exactly, DO wizards discuss, if not esoterica?
Newsgroups on Usenet are generally named based on their subject, not on the
intended audience. I've seen lots of assertions that the renaming destroyed
the only place for wizardly discussions, but no descriptions of what was
supposedly lost.
The existing name stank, according to the many postings claiming that too
many newbies were asking low-level questions there. This was a direct result
of the name. The name was broken. To convince us that .esoterica is a Bad
Thing, all that's needed is that you tell us what's been lost. Absent that,
there's nothing to argue.
Greg Lindahl
>OK, I give up. What, exactly, DO wizards discuss, if not esoterica?
Perhaps you could review the archives of UNIX-WIZARDS and figure it
out. I'm not a wizard, I don't play one on TV, but I enjoy hanging out
in a place where wizards are known to congregate and occasionally say
something very educational. Sure, wizardly postings appear on occasion
in every group, even alt.flame. But wizard-level discussion does not
often happen. Chip would force wizards and wizard-listeners to
subscribe to every group in order to see any wizardly discussion.
It's a simple difference of opinion.
>The existing name stank, according to the many postings claiming that too
>many newbies were asking low-level questions there. This was a direct result
>of the name.
Another solution would be self-moderation. A bad name is no reason to
destroy a group. And wanting to destroy a group is no reason to claim
it was just a rename with no content change.
Richard M. Mathews
>In article <41...@lib.tmc.edu> jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>OK, I give up. What, exactly, DO wizards discuss, if not esoterica?
>Perhaps you could review the archives of UNIX-WIZARDS and figure it
>out.
Reading the archives will just tell you what posters to the group discuss,
not what wizards discuss. From the archives, you will conclude that
"wizards" talk about how to remove files whose names begin with '-' and
about the history of command names. You will conclude that "wizards"
like discussing these subjects over and over again. You could go back
to archives from the early 80s, but I remember seeing the EXACT same
discussions back then.
When the AIX wizards around here get together, common topics seem to be
airplanes, volleyball, bridge, juggling, and where to get lunch;-)
Peter da Silva
> The existing name stank, according to the many postings claiming that too
> many newbies were asking low-level questions there.
Bull. I'm the guy who brought up this whole subject, and what I was
complaining about was there was no good comp.unix.misc group, which led
to people posting to .questions, .wizards, .xenix, or .i386 pretty much
at random when they weren't sure where to post.
Well, now we have a working comp.unix.misc.
We also have a whole shitload of new groups that have nothing to do with
the original problem. And we don't even have a decent solution to the
original problem because the original group is gone.
Wunnerful.
I told you in the original discussion period that Chip was going overboard.
And now we're going over the whole thing again. What goes around...
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180. 'U`
pe...@ferranti.com
Michael P. Deignan
>When someone comes up with a suitable proposal that everyone can agree to we
>can get that one to the voting stage. Chip's current proposal does not have
>a general consensus. He should amend or withdraw.
Seems to me that regardless of what the group is named, there is going to be
this perceived problem with a) inappropiate postings from new users, and b)
possible legal bait due to non-disclosure agreements.
The solution for both of these problems is to merely make the group
moderated, and let the moderator control the flow of postings into the
newsgroup proper. Then, it really wouldn't matter what the damn name is.
Eliot
over the issue of comp.unix.kernel):
>I wish we knew just what basis the lawyer used to come to that
>conclusion. I'm sure the rules would differ depending upon whether
>a newsgroup name were considered analogous to a book title, a
>product name, an alias, or whatever. Who knows what a court would
>decide? Given the ongoing software patent debacle, I'm not sure any
>of us can predict. We are in uncharted waters...
Ed, I can neither agree nor disagree with you. I can only tell you
that I keep hearing the same thing from people who claim to be in the
know. Perhaps one of them would care to post. It is also quite
probable that there is a lawyer out there that could argue the other
side. (Next, we'll need a judge and a case and we'll be set ;-) As
I stated in a previous message, the real issue is the perception of a
legal problem regarding the name, and NOT the actual legal problem.
I won't state my side of the issue, but I did want to state the issue
as I see it.
--
Eliot Lear
[le...@turbo.bio.net]
Neil Readwin
In article <1990Oct8.2...@mlb.semi.harris.com>,
d...@thrush.mlb.semi.harris.com (Don Lewis) writes:
|> I suspect the reason for a lot of the inappropriate triaffic in
|> c.u.internals is because of the combination of:
I suspect the reason is the inappropriate postings to UNIX-WIZARDS that are
being gatewayed into c.u.i
:-) Neil.
Disclaimer: 818 Phone: +44 71 528 8282 E-mail: nrea...@micrognosis.co.uk
W Westfield: Abstractions of hammers aren't very good at hitting real nails
Norman Yarvin
>>In article <41...@lib.tmc.edu> jmay...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>OK, I give up. What, exactly, DO wizards discuss, if not esoterica?
>>Perhaps you could review the archives of UNIX-WIZARDS and figure it
>>out.
>
>Reading the archives will just tell you what posters to the group discuss,
>not what wizards discuss.
That is true if you don't make any effort at all to separate the wheat from
the chaff. There was not a hell of a lot of wheat in the wizards, but it
was there, and quite identifiable as such. Certain individuals made quite a
concerted effort to only post wizard-level material. Take any posting by
Doug Gwyn or Chris Torek, for example.
I don't really have a good answer to "What do wizards discuss?" The fact
that I don't have a good answer is why I support the name wizards. If there
were a good answer it would give a good alternative name for the group.
As for ", if not esoterica?", there is interesting esoterica and there is
trivial esoterica. The former belongs in comp.unix.wizards; the latter does
not.
Regarding John Hough's call for votes on comp.unix.wizards: I will vote only
when I see a call for votes in news.announce.newgroups. If he is not able
to get a call for votes into there, how the hell will the group get approval
from the rest of the net? He has argued there is little reason for sticking
with the guidelines. But there is even less reason for not sticking with
them. A sense of indignation doesn't quite cut it as a reason.
--
Norman Yarvin yarvin...@cs.yale.edu
"The present era of incredible rottenness is not Democratic, it is not
Republican, it is national" -- Mark Twain
jeff daiell
> In <26...@cs.yale.edu> yarvin...@cs.yale.edu (Norman Yarvin) writes:
>
> >Now perhaps a broad "go away if you don't already know what the group is for"
> >is the right thing, but on the other hand is it really a good idea to
> >obfuscate the namespace? Security by obscurity, anyone?
>
> The point that you seem to be missing is that not everyone shares your
> viewpoint about the label "esoterica." I don't see it as obfuscatory at
> all. I see it as a wonder of clarity--a good descriptor for a newsgroup
> designed for that small group of people who know far more than most of
> us about the obscurities of the Unix OS and who want to talk about them.
Karen, how about a compromise: comp.unix.arcana? {|8^)]
Jeff
--
"The lesser of two evils -- is evil."
-- Seymour (Sy) Leon
Laird J. Heal
>In article <1990Oct8.2...@everexn.com>,
>the ever-delightful Karen Valentino writes:
Hear, hear! of course, for a while we have been turning news.groups into
comp.unix.pantywaists...
>
>Karen, how about a compromise: comp.unix.arcana? {|8^)]
>
I did suggest comp.unix.answers (among many other things) earlier as the most
descriptive title I could offer. comp.unix.README also suggests itself. The
consensus (I hope) is to discourage trivial postings but I strongly encourage
us to find a charter, and yes a name, that encourages readership.
--
My .signature is on vacation ------------- like me!
Kent Paul Dolan
j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> There is a limit to the amount of "gracious and generous" someone is
> able to dispense when the questions continue to be of the RFTM form.
> In a sense, the ease with which one posts to USENET is the greatest
> problem with USENET. It is too easy to post a simple question and wait
> for the response.
> In theory, any regular follower of c.u.wizards should be able to
> answer any of the basic questions that come cruising by in
> c.u.questions. But just as in the real world, you don't walk up to the
> chairman of Ford Motor Company and ask him how to start your car - of
> course he knows the answer, but then so does your owners manual.
Let me get this straight, just for the record.
Despite massive advice to the contrary, John got his newbie magnet
group name back again.
And the newbies are posting newbie questions to the group, again.
And John is bitching and complaining that he's just too important to
have to deal with this kind of questions, again.
And John can't understand why the group is flooded with newbie questions,
again.
And it's all somebody else's fault, again.
And John is stroking his ego, comparing himself to the chairman of FMC,
again.
This is where I came in.
Kent, the man from xanth.
<xant...@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xant...@well.sf.ca.us>
--
Haugh:wizard::dungheap:Everest