Proposal for an iPad newsgroup
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Adam H. Kerman on 10 Mar 2010 22:58 Aratzio <a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:25:05 -0500, in the land of news.groups, >Charles <fort514(a)mac.com> got double secret probation for writing: >>Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: >>>I'm open to suggestions. I can't think of a perfect fit for it. >>It is hard because it seems like a new category. Maybe >>misc.mobile.ipad. Or comp.mobile.ipad. Or rec.mobile.ipad. >comp.mac.pod.people Subscribe! For the second time, comp.sys.* has groups for handhelds and palmtops. There is nothing new in computer group naming: comp.sys.handhelds.ipad comp.sys.palmtops.ipad Both fit into the existing nomenclature, despite the long-standing problems of comp.sys.* as a catch-all second-level hierarchy.
From: Adam H. Kerman on 10 Mar 2010 23:02 Kathy Morgan <kmorgan(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >Charles <fort514(a)mac.com> wrote: >>Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: >>>I'm open to suggestions. I can't think of a perfect fit for it. >>It is hard because it seems like a new category. Maybe >>misc.mobile.ipad. Or comp.mobile.ipad. Or rec.mobile.ipad. >Both misc.mobile.ipad and comp.mobile.ipad sound reasonable to me. Great! Except for the blatant inability to follow naming guidelines, which I'm sure I read on Marty's wiki... Hint: You've suggested two orphan hierarchies.
From: JF Mezei on 10 Mar 2010 23:36 Perhaps one should get the "official" name for the operating system build used on ipod touch, iphone and ipad. And then base the newsgroup on that name. I suspect Apple has a code name for that version of Darwin and/or OS-X used on the arm based "touch" devices.
From: nospam on 10 Mar 2010 23:59 In article <4b987333$0$11006$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > Perhaps one should get the "official" name for the operating system > build used on ipod touch, iphone and ipad. iphone os > And then base the newsgroup on that name. a very good idea, since there's a tremendous overlap between the three.
From: Kathy Morgan on 11 Mar 2010 02:57
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > Michelle Steiner wrote: > > Right; that's where the discussion should be, in accordance with the "big > > 8" guidance on discussing the formation of new newsgroups. Actually, the "official" place to discuss new groups is now news.groups.proposals, although as some of you may have noticed there are several members of the Big 8 Management Board (B8MB) that also read many of the posts in news.groups. > Having followups to the relevant newsgroups for the initial trial > ballons/discussions would be convenient for us. I don't follow that > other newsgroup and won't until there is some call for a vote. Just a point of information: the procedure for creating new groups in the Big 8 has changed and there will be no Call for Votes. Instead, after the RFD has been posted and discussed (and possibly subsequent, modified RFD's as a result of the discussion), the proponent requests that the B8MB issue a "Last Call for Comments" (LCC) which starts a time clock. There are 5 days for final comments, then the members of the B8MB vote on the proposal and announce the RESULT. If the proposed group appears to be well named, has a reasonable charter and if it looks like there are sufficient users interested in using the group and posting to it to make it viable, then the B8MB probably will vote to create it. If it looks like there is a lot of opposition or not many people would use it, then it may not be created. Once an RFD has been posted, if you want the group to be created, either because you want to use the group or because you want the traffic to leave existing groups, please post that to news.groups.proposals. Posts there do influence the votes of the B8MB members. -- Kathy, member of B8MB but speaking only for myself |