[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
issues related to list change
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: issues related to list change
- From: Jon L White <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 1990 15:47:22 PDT
- Cc: CommonLoops.pa@arisia.Xerox.COM
- In-reply-to: "Gregor Kiczales's message of Fri, 31 Aug 1990 10:03:13 PDT <90Sep5.firstname.lastname@example.org>"
re: Moreover, there are a lot more people who can reliably read usenet
news than can get email. . . . If we really want to have a medium
to communicate with a lot of users, that seems to be the place to go.
I wonder how much this list -- CommonLoops.pa@arisia.Xerox.COM -- serves
as a "news board" reaching lots of users, and how much it serves as an
explicit user-group mailing list. If the latter, then reaching people
who can't use email doesn't seem to be an important goal.
re: 2) Should we use comp.lang.lisp?
My opinion is that we shouldn't.
Ditto, but possibly for stronger reasons than you are thinking. Using
comp.object.clos won't preclude CLOS discussion happening on
Common-Lisp@mcc.com any more than comp.lang.lisp subsumes the role
that the more specific mcc.com list has. And it would still have the
drawback of a "news" list rather than a more interactive email list.
While I agree with your goal to provide a forum for higher level
discussion of CLOS, I am seriously wondering about the role that
CommonLoops.pa plays in bug-reporting, and in bug-fix sharing, for
the extant PCL's. Even though I must represent a company that has
a CLOS product "in the field" now, we cannot ignore the fact that
numerous users out there will be conservatively bound to their
PCL code for some time yet. For example, I wanted to send you some
additions to defsys.lisp and fin.lisp files to account for upcoming
Lucid ports on prominent hardware and revamped ports on existing
hardware. But I'm still not sure how the integration and distribution
of these incremental changes will happen.
-- JonL --