| |
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > Yes I got what I needed, thanks. However I voted "hold" on the part. The
> > reasons I gave in the hold had to do with the sidewall bead width, plus I
> > found another "flaw" which I need advice on. What's the right group to
> > discuss? cad.dat.parts?
>
> Based on the charter, cad.dat.parts would not be the right group (unless the
> tyre had been posted to cad.dat.parts, and you posted a follow-up to that
> posting). But there seems to be a need for group(s) for focus(s)ed
> discussion of part files, and there aren't any better groups around...
Snipped the rest and FUT to admin.suggestions. More on the actual issue later.
I would like to suggest that a group (groups?) be created for focused
discussion of parts files so that cad.dat.parts can return to being a group
that has dat files posted to it and little else.
I am not sure of the correct name... it probably should NOT have the
"upload/attach DAT file" feature.
But it feels like maybe lugnet.cat.dat.parts.discuss might be the right name.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
