Should we split this group? (was Re: Lift the "ban" :-)) [message #5902] |
Thu, 14 March 1996 00:00  |
zawodny
Messages: 121 Registered: August 1992
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <4i76uh$o7g@fu-berlin.de> Sergey Senin <ss@ee.port.ac.uk> writes:
> todd@rainbow.rmii.com (Todd Bradley) wrote:
>
>> The problem is that one man's technical issue is another man's
>> marketing hype or slander.
>
> Can't we sort of restrict participation of the employees of companies A and B
> :-) to a certain area, say employees of company A or B can only answer
> questions about products A or B respectively if this questions are from the
> range "How do I do this or that?".
>> Historically, employees of company A
>> felt that just about every article posted by employees of company
>> B were attempts at marketing or selling company B's product.
>
> This is called paranoia, isn't it? :-)) ;-)) :-))
>
I think that we are all missing the obvious solution here, namely that we
split the group into comp.lang.rsi-idl (I think comp.lang.idl is taken)
and comp.lang.pvwave. The two have diverged sufficiently in the last few
years that I think there is little reason to logically associate them with
the same group. In this way Company A can still snoop on Company B's
group, but they cannot claim that Company B is advertising to a captive
audience of Company A users. Let's face it, this group is 95% IDL related
right now. So, let's kick the PV-WAVE users out on their own. I'm sure
they'll stick around after the split, since this (IDL) group has the
knowledge base and can solve a large number of PV-WAVE problems/questions.
So what do you think?
--
Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny KO4LW NASA Langley Research Center
E-mail: J.M.Zawodny@LaRC.NASA.gov MS-475, Hampton VA, 23681-0001
|
|
|