David Kristofferson kristoff at
Fri Jun 3 14:22:33 EST 1994

In article <2snfbj$ca2 at nntp2.Stanford.EDU>,
Mike Cherry <cherry at stout.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

>I think the charter could be changed to include Gopher and FTP
>resources (as well as anything else that comes along) with little
>problem. I do not think fragmenting the resources by software is the
>overall best approach. Maybe fragmenting by topic would be better, if
>fragmentation must be done. Many resources are available via a number
>of different Internet software, will a site be excluded from
>mentioning their Gopher and FTP servers? Of course all you have to do
>is list a URL for a gopher resource and it is a WWW issue? So why
>state that non-WWW is excluded?


Reinhard can respond to your questions about his proposal but I want
everyone to be aware of one other wrinkle.  BIOSCI is currently
running the biogopher mailing list in "prototype newsgroup" status,
i.e., after six months it is either up to a newsgroup or out.  That
group (and STADEN-USERS) is due for a vote later this month.  This
needs to be considered from the usual organizational administrivia
standpoint.  We can, of course have a group or
a combined group, etc. but Reinhard has reasons for this WWW proposal
that he should elaborate on himself.


				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				biosci-help at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list