Future of newsgroup ; a CritDate.
Dr John Stockton
It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
its real usefulness.
I am minded to raise with one of the UK News Committee the suggestion
that use of the news:uk.* mechanism for the removal of the group might
now be initiated, though perhaps with a view to taking no decisive step
until after April 6th has succeeded.
Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
I can ask there.
I intend to keep my mini-FAQ available, and if necessary updated.
FYI, the uty2k message-count is now over 9980, and should reach 10000 by
FY 2001-2; of course, a large amount has been spam of various sorts.
The original proponent's E-address did not receive, recently.
Newsgroup csy2k is scarcely relevant nowadays.
Newsgroup csy2k-t is dead or at least inactive.
Comments?
==
I'm told by Mark@nokia :
2154-03-23 Sat - CDMA mobile phone (Americas, S Korea) system timer,
36 bits from 1980-01-06 UTC, overflows at 03:28:58.88 UTC exactly,
ignoring leap seconds.
Do we know of any such dates in European (etc.) systems?
That's the GPS start date - I wonder whether GPS counts anything other
than weeks that might roll over?
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Y2k for beginners - year2000.txt UK mini-FAQ - y2k_mfaq.txt Don't Mail News
Adrian Wontroba
Dr John Stockton <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
>its real usefulness.
It looks rather that way.
>Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
>for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
>I can ask there.
It could be a suitable home.
>I intend to keep my mini-FAQ available, and if necessary updated.
Tell me when you want the auto-posting to stop.
Michael Kennedy
"Dr John Stockton" <sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JvdOH1Ry...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
>
> It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
> its real usefulness.
>
> I am minded to raise with one of the UK News Committee the suggestion
> that use of the news:uk.* mechanism for the removal of the group might
> now be initiated, though perhaps with a view to taking no decisive step
> until after April 6th has succeeded.
>
> Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
> for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
> I can ask there.
...snip...
> Comments?
I would agree with the closure of uty2k - perhaps in April as you suggest,
though I doubt if any major Y2K issues will arise by then - and with the
creation of the more general group (eg, uk.tech.misc).
Best regards,
- Mike
Tony Walton
>
>
> IMV it would be appropriate to wait until 20001-04-06 then publish an
On reflection, perhaps we don't need to wait quite that long :-}
2001-04-06 should be late enough.
--
Tony Walton
Tony Walton
>
> It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
> its real usefulness.
>
> I am minded to raise with one of the UK News Committee the suggestion
> that use of the news:uk.* mechanism for the removal of the group might
> now be initiated, though perhaps with a view to taking no decisive step
> until after April 6th has succeeded.
As I understand it the mechanism consists of publishing an RFD
(announcing that a group is to be deleted) in the group that's affected
and in uk.net.news.config. The removal process starts with the
publishing of the RFD. I'm not aware of any system of publishing an RFD
to take effect after a certain date or of any mechanism or indeed need
to pre-warn that such an RFD is to be published. Sometimes an
unofficial strawpoll precedes an official RFD, but I can't see that
that's necessary here.
IMV it would be appropriate to wait until 20001-04-06 then publish an
RFD for removal of this group shortly afterwards (assuming nothing
untoward happens due to rollover on that date, of course :-) )
>
> Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
> for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
> I can ask there.
Does utm exist? If not, we need to start the long slow process of
creating it.
>
> Newsgroup csy2k is scarcely relevant nowadays.
When was it ever ? :-)
--
Tony Walton
Dr John Stockton
news:uk.tech.y2k, Tony Walton <tony....@uk.sun.com> wrote at Fri, 26
Jan 2001 15:12:49 :-
>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
>> its real usefulness.
>>
>> I am minded to raise with one of the UK News Committee the suggestion
>> that use of the news:uk.* mechanism for the removal of the group might
>> now be initiated, though perhaps with a view to taking no decisive step
>> until after April 6th has succeeded.
>
>As I understand it the mechanism consists of publishing an RFD
>(announcing that a group is to be deleted) in the group that's affected
>and in uk.net.news.config. The removal process starts with the
>publishing of the RFD. I'm not aware of any system of publishing an RFD
>to take effect after a certain date or of any mechanism or indeed need
>to pre-warn that such an RFD is to be published. Sometimes an
>unofficial strawpoll precedes an official RFD, but I can't see that
>that's necessary here.
There are preparatory steps, such as writing the RFD, which can best be
done at leisure beforehand. We might also consider / take advice on the
probability of a fast-track succeeding, which saves effort.
>IMV it would be appropriate to wait until 20001-04-06 then publish an
>RFD for removal of this group shortly afterwards (assuming nothing
>untoward happens due to rollover on that date, of course :-) )
Some may be affected by 2001-09-09 - less than 20 Ms to go now - but I
doubt it's worth waiting for.
>> Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
>> for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
>> I can ask there.
>
>Does utm exist? If not, we need to start the long slow process of
>creating it.
Its existence was my chief reason for suggesting it. It seems right,
but has little traffic. Its charter should be read (via below); but I
expect it to be compatible.
Adrian : If it suits you, perhaps the micro-FAQ can continue until mid-
April? I'll keep in touch.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For more on our news hierarchy news:uk.*, see newsgroups news:uk.answers and
news:uk.net.news.*, and <URL: http://www.usenet.org.uk/>.
Adrian Wontroba
>April? I'll keep in touch.
The micro-faq posting is entirely automatic, so there is no problem with
keeping it going until it is no longer required.
Dr John Stockton
For uk.tech.misc readers - the story so far : news:uk.tech.y2k was
useful, is now only slightly used, and is ripe for removal; but it would
be good to have another group agreed in news:uk.* for any residual
matters.
In article <FRRtIOVf...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, seen in
news:uk.tech.y2k, Dr John Stockton <sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote at
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:10:07 :-
>JRS: In article <3A7193F1...@uk.sun.com>, seen in
>news:uk.tech.y2k, Tony Walton <tony....@uk.sun.com> wrote at Fri, 26
>Jan 2001 15:12:49 :-
>>Dr John Stockton wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to me that newsgroup uk.tech.y2k has now essentially outlived
>>> its real usefulness.
>>>
>>> I am minded to raise with one of the UK News Committee the suggestion
>>> that use of the news:uk.* mechanism for the removal of the group might
>>> now be initiated, though perhaps with a view to taking no decisive step
>>> until after April 6th has succeeded.
>>
>
>>> Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
>>> for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
>>> I can ask there.
>>
>>Does utm exist? If not, we need to start the long slow process of
>>creating it.
>
>Its existence was my chief reason for suggesting it. It seems right,
>but has little traffic. Its charter should be read (via below); but I
>expect it to be compatible.
"(via below)" included <URL: http://www.usenet.org.uk/>, which seems
ill; Charles Lindsey has mailed me a copy of utm's charter :
Charter of uk.tech.misc
-----------------------
(Not Moderated)
For discussion of technological matters with a specifically
UK content, which do not fit into another group in the uk.*
hierarchy.
Binaries and advertisements may not be posted in this group.
This is both broader and shorter than the uty2k charter.
The reasons for suggesting uk.tech.misc instead of uk.comp.misc are that
the latter is rather dominated by domestic PCs and other Windows
machines, whereas the interests of uty2k cover all computers and more.
Comments from uty2k & utm readers, please!
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Tony Walton
>
> JRS: In article <3A7193F1...@uk.sun.com>, seen in
> news:uk.tech.y2k, Tony Walton <tony....@uk.sun.com> wrote at Fri, 26
> Jan 2001 15:12:49 :-
> >Dr John Stockton wrote:
> >>
>
> >> Another UK group, perhaps uk.tech.misc, might be considered as a place
> >> for any residual discussion. If that seems /a priori/ suitable to you,
> >> I can ask there.
> >
> >Does utm exist? If not, we need to start the long slow process of
> >creating it.
>
> Its existence was my chief reason for suggesting it.
I must have misremembered, then - wasn't there some talk of an RFD to
create that group when the closing down of uty2k was originally mooted?
Possibly that was a different group.
> It seems right,
> but has little traffic. Its charter should be read (via below); but I
> expect it to be compatible.
Hmmm. I can't see the charter at the moment (usenet.org.uk seems not to
be talking) but utm seems to be full of a strange mishmash of questions
about DVD players, questions about plasma screens (which should probably
be on uk.media.tv somewhere), announcements about recalls on some
motorcycle or other (which should probably be on rec.motorcycle) and
some spam about green cards and social security numbers (whatever those
may be!). Is anything in that group actually on-topic? I for one
wouldn't subscribe to it.
--
Tony
Dr John Stockton
NB: XP uty2k, utm, uFAQ.
>For uk.tech.misc readers - the story so far : news:uk.tech.y2k was
>useful, is now only slightly used, and is ripe for removal; but it would
>be good to have another group agreed in news:uk.* for any residual
>matters.
I presently intend to ask, within the next few days, one of UK News
Committee to collaborate in the formalities for the removal of
news:uk.tech.y2k with effect from such date after Sunday 2001-04-15 as
Control sees fit to choose.
That allows for the remote possibility of something interesting
happening at the end of the current tax year on Thursday 2001-04-05;
after that, the next significant date that I have listed is the UNIX
Gigasecond (and Javascript Teramillisecond (& Java?)) on September 9th.
For any residual related discussions, I suggest the quiet group
news:uk.tech.misc.
I will ask Adrian Wontroba of Stade Computers to terminate the robo-
posting of the micro-FAQ from about that date, with our thanks for this
assistance over the past three years or so.