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

[Theodore Thomas Garrett]

In article <3370 at stl.stc.co.uk> dww at stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) writes:
>In article <18530 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>#In article <34639 at eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> pjg at acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) writes:
>#>Based upon the mishmash arriving at my site some peope are aliasing
>#>comp.unix.wizards to comp.unix.internals ... is anyone doing the opposite?  
>#
>#How about people who've un-aliased the group after being convinced
>#the name change really was a bad idea?
>
>Count me for one.   I didn't bother with the original vote as I thought the
>real UNIX wizards on the net could quite well look after themselves, and
>when the result came out I followed it like a good news admin should
>(though I hadn't removed c.u.wizards).   But it now seems clear we've made
>a collective mistake.   Quite apart from the legal arguement (which I don't
>buy - but I'm not a lawyer), the sort of things discussed in c.u.wizards
>cover far more than just 'internals'.  In fact on my recent reading of the
>group there's very little about the internals of UNIX, if that means kernal
>stuff, and still under half if you include the file system etc.
>
>The only solution, I think, is another vote.  Who will do a formal CALL?
>Pending the result, lets leave both groups in place, with no aliasing.

If there need be a formal call for votes, I so issue it.
c.u.w. needs to co-exist with, if not predispose of c.u.i.

I hereby call for votes on re-instating comp.unix.wizards.