From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 13:32:56 -0500
From: Geoff Langdale Geoff_Langdale@GS10.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: comp.os.plan9
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0969080a-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19950330183256.sWuLlwUqyeh2MBXJ1IkuBXx8DTvNcanRMFS0BXoEWaM@z>


An alt group is probably not a good idea. Aside from the cruddy
distribution of alt, do we really want to saddle ourselves with
a such a low-rent title as alt.os.plan9? (alongside alt.os.multics
and alt.os.nachos, as it happens)

Over a year ago, I ran a proposal for comp.os.plan9 up the flagpole.
Not very many people saluted. Remember, in order to get comp.os.plan9
newgrouped we need 100 more YES votes than NO votes and a 2/3rds majority.
Taking into account the small group of troglodytes who vote NO to every
newsgroup proposal, that amounts to 110-120 YES votes. I never took the
proposal for comp.os.plan9 beyond the discussion phase, as at the time it
was obvious that we weren't going to get the required number of votes.
I decided that it was probably better to put off the proposal until a
general release of Plan 9, rather than get defeated from lack of interest.

Possibly, it's time to try again. The discussion of the newsgroup should
probably follow an announcement of the imminent availability of the general
release, just to drum up interest (half of the messages that I got after my
original proposal were people asking how they could get Plan 9). There's
certainly a need for a FAQ, but no need whatsoever for a moderator. If it
comes to that, we can work out comp.os.plan9.announce later (not to
mention comp.os.plan9.advocacy for the religious flamewars).

Geoff.