c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals

[Chip Salzenberg]

(In this article, I suggest renaming c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica.
Please read the entire article before commenting on it.  Followups to
news.groups.)

During all the discussion of the comp.unix.* reorganization, people
spoke up for and against renaming c.u.wizards.  But no one ever
suggested that the name "c.u.internals" could cause LEGAL difficulty.

The idea seems ridiculous to me.  But then, who ever said the law
couldn't be ridiculous?  From what I've read, the word "internals" is
specifically mentioned in the AT&T source license.  So people who have
read the source code are hesitant to post anything to a newsgroup with
the word "internals" in the name.  Sigh.

So I think it's time to rename the group again.  As I recall, the best
alternative name proposed during the discussion was "c.u.esoterica".
At the time, I considered this name to be too vague; but it looks like
the best choice right now.

Someone (I) could run a vote on the renaming of c.u.internals to
c.u.esoterica.  But that would take a month for the discussion
(again!) and three weeks for the vote (again!).

However, since the discussion period has already run for the c.u.*
reorganization, and c.u.esoterica resulted from that discussion,
perhaps we could skip the discussion phase and go straight to a vote.

Furthermore, due to the legal repercussions of the current name, we
could just rename c.u.internals to c.u.esoterica immediately.

If anyone objects strongly to a bending of the guidelines here, please
let yourself be heard.  I don't want this group's propagation to be
fragmented because of administrator resentment.  I'm listening.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip at tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>