From: jimrtex@pipeline.com 
  
 On 10 Jul 2003 20:37:24 -0700, nigel@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Nigel 
 Perry) wrote: 
  
 >Jim Riley  wrote in message news:... 
 >> It also suggests that c# is a proprietary product of Microsoft, which 
 >> begs the question of why there is a need for a group for discussing 
 >> standarization independent of Microsoft? 
 > 
 >C# was originally developed by Microsoft. It has been standardised 
 >through ECMA/ISO and there are now non-Microsoft implementations 
 >(Mono, Portable Dot NET). It is not a proprietary product anymore. 
 > 
 >It is the ECMA Standards group, not Microsoft, which has placed this 
 >RFD. 
  
 Let me be as clear.  This proposal by the ECMA Standards group is 
 short-sighted. 
  
 You may have anticipated that there would be opposition to the group 
 based on the relationship of c# with Microsoft.  That, however, does 
 not mean that simply asserting independence from Microsoft makes it a 
 good proposal. 
  
 Imagine you were planning on building a house.  I notice that the site 
 is at the bottom of a steep hill where a highway makes a sharp turn. 
 I point out that you will likely find busses and trucks parked in your 
 bedroom.  You reply that you aren't interested in group sex, and you 
 will provide a map to those who miss the turn.  This isn't going to 
 keep the vehicles out, and it won't keep the house being unhabitable. 
  
 Usenet has largely been consumerized, with the consumers vastly 
 outnumbering the producers.  Or in the case of c#, users of the 
 language vastly outnumber implementors and standard-writers.  It is 
 simply not realistic that the users of c# will limit themselves to 
 mailing lists or the microsoft.* groups, and then come over to the Big 
 8 group when they want to discuss language standards with the 
 implementors. 
  
 But if in the ultra-impropable case that it is only implementors and 
 standard-writers who are interested, there are unlikely to be enough 
 to warrant a group.  It could be handled with a mailing list, or a 
 newsgroup on a private server. 
  
 As proposed: 
  
 comp.std.csharp 
  
 The group name or the intent of the proponents will magically keep the 
 unwanted traffic out, or it will somehow all find its way to a 
 proprietary group on a proprietary server or mailing lists. 
  
  
 Possible alternatives: 
  
 A) comp.lang.csharp 
  
 Users could discuss the language.  Implementors and standard writers 
 could participate as well.  If there is a need for a more-specific 
 standardization group, it can be created later. 
  
  
 B) comp.lang.csharp and 
    comp.lang.csharp.standardization 
  
 Having the two groups next to each other makes the relationship 
 between the groups clearer. 
  
  
 C) comp.lang.csharp and 
    comp.std.csharp 
  
 People might believe that the second group is for "standard" variant 
 of the language (the equivalent to standard Pascal or Basic). 
  
  
 D) comp.std.csharp (moderated) 
  
 You could keep the unwanted traffic out. 
  
 -- 
 Jim Riley 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)