• RESULT: comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed

    From Big-8 Management Board@board@big-8.org to comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.misc,news.announce.newgroups,news.groups.proposals on Thu Apr 2 15:49:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

    RESULT:

    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed

    The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2026-03-20 initiated a five-day
    period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8
    Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the groups comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc. The vote was 1
    in favour of deletion, 1 against deletion, 1 abstaining, and 1 not
    voting.


    DISTRIBUTION:
    news.announce.newgroups
    news.groups.proposals
    comp.unix.misc
    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc
    comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc


    PROPONENT: Marco Moock <mmoock@big-8.org>


    RATIONALE:

    There are various groups in comp.unix.* that are not used regularly.

    I propose to delete groups that are not used well and to direct the
    people to more general groups like comp.unix.misc in case they want to
    discuss the topics they special groups covered.
    If people declare interest in using them, I suggest to not delete them.


    DISCUSSION SO FAR:

    For discussions relating to the 1st RFD, please see the summary in the
    2nd RFD at
    <news:MPG.4382d7422a8b57be989701@news.eternal-september.org>.

    Discussions relating to the 2nd RFD took place in
    news.groups.proposals and in news.groups. The discussion occurred
    primarily in the threads in each group for "2nd RFD: Remove comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc", but many
    responses were generally applicable to all groups under consideration
    for removal.

    Arguments, suggestions, and observations put forward in response to
    the 2nd RFD were:

    - Removing unused groups will not increase participation in related
    groups, nor in Usenet as a whole. [sticks, Steve Bonine, Adam
    H. Kerman]

    - Many sites won't list a group that has been rmgrouped, so group
    history will be inaccessible unless one knows the group existed and
    seeks out a provider that keeps the removed groups
    archived. [sticks, Steve Bonine]

    - There is potential for inconsistency/confusion for users if some
    sites keep the group available and some don't. [Steve Bonine]

    - There is no point to streamlining the list of newsgroups, as there
    are no new users coming in to Usenet who could usefully be funneled
    into a smaller list of groups. [Steve Bonine]

    - It would be more useful to overhaul the whole Big-8, keeping only
    the active groups and combining unused or little-used groups with
    them. While this will not "save" Usenet, it would bring users
    together and encourage active discussions with more
    contributors. Something like this has happened in fr.* and nobody
    has asked to re-create the removed newsgroups. [Julien |elie]

    - The topics of some groups are now obsolete. Other groups were split
    into sub-groups when the volume of discussion was much greater, and
    these could perhaps now be usefully recombined. [Dr Englebert
    Buxbaum]

    - Large-scale consolidation of groups might work if users could be
    consolidated along with their subscribed groups, but it's more
    likely that they would just lose access to their old groups once the
    rmgroups were issued. Also, to have much effect, it would be
    necessary to remove a large majority of groups. [Matija Nalis]

    - In a large-scale deletion, groups that are to be deleted could be
    left in place for a transitional period in order to redirect users
    to the best remaining group. [The True Melissa]

    - The proposals overestimate the importance of the hierarchy
    administration, as the active newsgroups list merely tells news
    server administrators that, if they create a group on a given topic,
    they should use the canonical name given in the list. [Adam
    H. Kerman]

    - Hierarchy administration does benefit new operators installing
    Usenet servers, who ask for more accurate active files. [Todd
    M. McComb]

    - Older Unix systems, possibly including those covered by the groups
    under discussion, may still be in use in the telephone industry or
    by individuals with old PCs. [David Chmelik]


    GROUPS:

    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc
    386BSD operating system.

    History:
    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc is a unmoderated newsgroup which passed its
    vote for creation by 285:87 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on
    22 Feb 1995. This groups supersedes the unmoderated groups in the comp.os.386bsd hierarchy, which will all be removed on 26 May 1995.

    Charter:
    Discussion about 386bsd which does not fall into the area
    of coverage of any of the other 386bsd groups. Things
    posted here should not be crossposted to the other 386bsd
    groups.

    Rationale:
    Last on-topic message from 2010.
    This operating system isn't developed anymore.
    If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.


    comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc
    BSD/OS operating system.

    History:
    comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc is a unmoderated newsgroup which passed its
    vote for creation by 305:69 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on
    22 Feb 1995.

    Charter:
    Discussion about BSD/OS which does not fall into the area
    of coverage of any of the other bsdi groups. Things posted
    here should not be crossposted to the other bsdi groups.

    Rationale:
    Last on-topic discussion in 2015
    This operating system isn't developed anymore.
    If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.


    HISTORY OF THIS RFD:

    2025-10-10: 1st RFD (remove)
    2025-11-15: 2nd RFD (remove)
    2026-03-20: Final RFD / Last Call for Comments
    2026-04-02: Result: comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and
    comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed
    --
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board
    https://www.big-8.org/
    board@big-8.org

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From not@not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) to news.groups.proposals on Thu Apr 2 21:03:28 2026
    From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

    In news.groups.proposals Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    RESULT:

    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed

    The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2026-03-20 initiated a five-day
    period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the groups comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc.

    So "the Big-8 Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the
    groups" but they "will not be removed". I'm not complaining, but
    does that just mean nobody in the Big-8 can be bothered, or what?

    The vote was 1 in favour of deletion, 1 against deletion, 1
    abstaining, and 1 not voting.

    Well I guess it's one way to handle a split decision: announce both
    results.
    --
    __ __
    #_ < |\| |< _#

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tristan Miller@tmiller@big-8.org to news.groups.proposals on Thu Apr 2 21:18:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

    Greetings.

    On 2026-04-02 20:03, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
    In news.groups.proposals Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
    RESULT:

    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed

    The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2026-03-20 initiated a five-day
    period for final comments. Following this comment period, the Big-8
    Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the groups
    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc.

    So "the Big-8 Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the
    groups" but they "will not be removed".


    Oops -- the sentence in the second paragraph should have read "...has
    decided by a vote not to remove the groups...", in accordance with
    what's written in the line above it, in the Subject header, and in the
    History of this RFD section. The typo is my responsibility and I
    apologize for any confusion.

    I would post a new version with a Supersedes header but I suspect most
    servers don't accept such articles any more. Instead, I'll just post a
    brief follow-up to the three result announcements.

    Regards,
    Tristan
    --
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board
    https://www.big-8.org/
    board@big-8.org

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Big-8 Management Board@board@big-8.org to comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.misc,news.announce.newgroups,news.groups.proposals on Thu Apr 2 21:23:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: news.groups.proposals

    On 2026-04-02 14:49, Big-8 Management Board wrote:
    RESULT:

    comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc will not be removed

    The Last Call for Comments (LCC) on 2026-03-20 initiated a five-day
    period for final comments.-a Following this comment period, the Big-8 Management Board has decided by a vote to remove the groups comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc and comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc.-a The vote was 1
    in favour of deletion, 1 against deletion, 1 abstaining, and 1 not
    voting.


    The sentence in the second paragraph should have read "...has decided by
    a vote not to remove the groups...", in accordance with what's written
    in the line above it, in the Subject header, and in the History of this
    RFD section. Apologies for any confusion.
    --
    Usenet Big-8 Management Board
    https://www.big-8.org/
    board@big-8.org

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2