I think we have a proposal on our hands (re: intel U**X)

[Paul Vixie]

In article <109 at jetson.UPMA.MD.US> john at jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes:
# > #     comp.unix.xenix         Microsoft Xenix and its derivatives
# > #     comp.unix.sysv.i286     AT&T Unix System V for the '286
# > #     comp.unix.sysv.i386     AT&T Unix System V for the '386
# > and   comp.unix.microport     (destroyed)
# 
# If we're going to do the .sysv. thing, let's at least stay consistent
# within the USENET name space, and use .sys5., which has precedent in
# comp.bugs.sys5.

So moved.  I agree.  I hadn't thought of this.

# I still feel that this is going to cause problems in the near future,
# when plenty of people can rightly claim that Xenix/386 is "AT&T Unix
# System V for the '386".

The Xenix people won't believe this until they see it.  If there's a lot
of cross-posting and the two product lines truly merge, we can delete the
Xenix group.

# Probably the best way to handle voting on this is to first put up for
# vote two or three naming proposals.  The one that gets a plurality of
# votes will then be put up for the "real" voting, requiring the 100 [...]

This sounds good.  Since you are volunteering to coordinate the first and
second votes on this issue, please think carefully about whether you want
too much more netwide discussion.  If you are taking a vote, then by all
means take one -- by mail.  Ask people to send you nominations, and let us
all know how it comes out.  Then ask for votes among the top three schemes
that get nominated.
-- 
Paul Vixie
Digital Equipment Corporation	Work:  vixie at dec.com	Play:  paul at vixie.UUCP
Western Research Laboratory	 uunet!decwrl!vixie	   uunet!vixie!paul
Palo Alto, California, USA	  +1 415 853 6600	   +1 415 864 7013