Xref: utzoo comp.cog-eng:1946 comp.groupware:530 comp.multimedia:339 comp.realtime:1249 news.groups:30456
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hydra!ral
From: ral@hydra.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Roger Lighty)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng,comp.groupware,comp.multimedia,comp.realtime,news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal for radical re-organization of these news groups.
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.192008.10535@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 12 Apr 91 19:20:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.170634.14666@telecdn.uucp>
Sender: news@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Usenet)
Distribution: na
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: hydra.jpl.nasa.gov

While some may approach these subjects as software-engineering, others have
definitions of S/W-ENG which would not allow progress in these fields.  If 
you put S/W-ENG in the title, and the discussion wanders to user preferences
or data on human factors/psychology -- here come the flame wars.  Cog-eng,
groupware, multimedia are about more than the latest structured programming
technique.  Even in the computing domain, there is more to these areas than
S/W.  Would we then need a comp.hardware.multimedia.  And looking at some
of the other groups: comp.S/W-ENG.groupware might need a 
comp.sociology.groupware; comp.S/W-ENG.cog-eng might need a comp.biology.cog-eng
and comp.psychology.cog-eng.  

no, No, NO!  comp.S/W-ENG is too parochial a view of the multi-disciplinary
nature of these fields.  Not all of us are comp.sci.  Some of us are biologists
and there are rumors of social scientist and even (don't let it get around) artists
and real designers working in these fields.

NO TANX				ral@hydra.jpl.nasa.gov