From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:27:50 GMT
From: seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman@uunet.uu.net  (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Lets split comp.lang.ada into multiple groups to confine flames
Message-ID: <1992Dec17.172750.17320@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1992Dec17.084727.26313@sunbim.be> accs1@bagheera.mumath writes:
>In article 62879@mimsy.umd.edu, alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore) writes:
>>make comp.lang.ada obsolete and create a small set of groups instead.
>>
>>  some suggestions
>>
>>    comp.lang.advocacy   - for the flame wars
>>    comp.lang.programmer - for discussions of design/development Ada language
 issues
>>                           (or comp.lang.technical or better name?)
>>    comp.lang.announce   - moderated, low volume important announcements
>>                           of meetings, products, standards, new mandates :) 
etc
>>    comp.lang.misc       - catch all
>>
>>this works well in the NeXT groups which I've been reading lately
>>they have huge flame fests between Objective-C and C++ but confine
>>them to the advocacy group.
>>
>>anyone interested or familiar with how to do this?
Usenet has a balloting procedure, but I haven't the foggiest idea how it
works. No doubt there is a bewsgroup to post this to, but I don't know
that either...
>>
>
>I like the idea and the division as proposed sounds reasonable.
I will also vote yes when the ballot arrives. Long overdue!

Mike Feldman