Re: Split c.d.o - Straw poll results
From: Lee Levy <levy.lee.ls_at_bhp.com.au>
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <4iq91b$rvr_at_gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>#1/1
I'm sorry SV, but it is hard to reply when we still dont properly understand what is meant!
I reckon we either have 3 groups, one each for tools, opo and apps (my preference), or we just have one called tools to cover all 3 fields (Yuck!) Remember these tools are unrelated.
<snip>
>
>5 a c.d.o.jobs 40 1
> b c.d.o.marketplace 6 5
> c c.d.o.3rdparty 1 0
>
>Can we stick to c.d.o.jobs?
who cares - it only applies to continental US anyway!
>
>6 a c.d.o.network 30 9
>
>7 a c.d.o.sql 34 7
> b c.d.o.sql.plsql 1 3
> c c.d.o.web 2 2
> d c.d.o.languages 1 0
>
>Can we drop the low interest groups?
Dont do it!
The web product has only been out for 6 months - I think a seperate group for this would be good, and will become more important over time. So while not many people use it NOW, many will in the years to come. SQL also needs a group, else these questions will be spread all over the groups. (DBAs use it, and so do App Developers, and the 2 dont talk much, except for here.)
PL/SQL? Well maybe.
Drop the cdo.languages. What was it supposed to cover? Its not clear from the name, so it either wouldnt be used, or would have the wrong stuff in it.
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <4iq91b$rvr_at_gossamer.itmel.bhp.com.au>#1/1
In article <4ilhfa$bgu_at_jaring.my>, vijia_at_pop.jaring.my (SV Singam) says:
<snip>
>4 a c.d.o.tools 46 1
> b c.d.o.tools.CASE 1 3
> c c.d.o.tools.programming 3 3
> d c.d.o.tools.dev.2000 1 2
> e c.d.o.tools.opo 1 2
> f c.d.o.tools.applications 1 2
>
>Can we drop all others except c.d.o.tools?
a - is fine.
b - would also be fine, but is starting to get a bit long.
c - ditto
d - misleading. wont this also cover opo and apps, or do you mean
that we could have 3 groups: 1 for tools, 1 for opo and 1 for apps,
by d, e and f
I'm sorry SV, but it is hard to reply when we still dont properly understand what is meant!
I reckon we either have 3 groups, one each for tools, opo and apps (my preference), or we just have one called tools to cover all 3 fields (Yuck!) Remember these tools are unrelated.
<snip>
>
>5 a c.d.o.jobs 40 1
> b c.d.o.marketplace 6 5
> c c.d.o.3rdparty 1 0
>
>Can we stick to c.d.o.jobs?
who cares - it only applies to continental US anyway!
>
>6 a c.d.o.network 30 9
>
>7 a c.d.o.sql 34 7
> b c.d.o.sql.plsql 1 3
> c c.d.o.web 2 2
> d c.d.o.languages 1 0
>
>Can we drop the low interest groups?
Dont do it!
The web product has only been out for 6 months - I think a seperate group for this would be good, and will become more important over time. So while not many people use it NOW, many will in the years to come. SQL also needs a group, else these questions will be spread all over the groups. (DBAs use it, and so do App Developers, and the 2 dont talk much, except for here.)
PL/SQL? Well maybe.
Drop the cdo.languages. What was it supposed to cover? Its not clear from the name, so it either wouldnt be used, or would have the wrong stuff in it.
And I still reckon we should consider removing the 'd' from the 'c.d.o.'!
just m2cw
Lee
----------------+---------------------------------------------------
This | Lee Levy, ISSD Systems Development, Del Code (34)
space | BHP Information Technology, ACN 006 476 213
left blank | PO Box 261, Warrawong, NSW 2502, Australia
intentionally | PH: +61 42 75-5485 Fax: -5500 Tie: 8855-
in mourning | Internet : levy.lee.ls_at_bhp.com.au
----------------+---------------------------------------------------Opinions expressed are mostly my own, so give me some credit. Received on Thu Mar 21 1996 - 00:00:00 CET