Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:17549 news.groups:31377
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!ucbvax!enuxha.eas.asu.edu!hollasch
From: hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Steve Hollasch)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposal for comp.graphics.research newsgroup
Summary: Here we go again...
Message-ID: <9104270854.AA10131@enuxha.eas.asu.edu>
Date: 27 Apr 91 08:54:40 GMT
References: <13207@goofy.Apple.COM>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Steve Hollasch)
Followup-To: comp.graphics, news.groups
Organization: Arizona State University
Lines: 45

turk@Apple.COM (Ken "Turk" Turkowski) writes:
( Even though I work in the field of computer graphics, I have thought about
( unsubscribing to comp.graphics because none of the articles are interesting.
(
( I propose the establish the newsgroup:
(
(     comp.graphics.research
(
( to re-establish a forum for technical discussions of a research nature.
(
( Certainly there must be other people who are interested in state-of-the-art
( developments in computer graphics, aren't there?
(
( Please post your interest to this newsgroup, so that we might all
( get a feel for the number of doers vs. users out there.

    This discussion seems to come up about once a year, but has always
fizzled out for some reason.  Personally, I think it's a great idea.
However, you say that you don't find any of the articles in comp.graphics
interesting.  I hope you're exaggerating, because you don't create
"interesting" articles by creating a new newsgroup for them.  You really
need to have the articles and interest already present, then you create
the new newsgroup to divert the traffic for better categorization of
topics.

    What usually happens with this discussion is that someone tosses up
the idea of an algorithms-oriented newsgroup (in your case,
"comp.graphics.research", in the past "comp.graphics.theory", also
suggested "comp.graphics.algorithms").  Then someone suggests that we
create a separate newsgroup for the disussion of graphics formats.  Then
someone suggests that we create "comp.graphics.ibm", then
"comp.graphics.art", then ...

    The main plea of this response is to curb any tendency to propose a
conglomeration of seventeen comp.graphics subgroups and subsequently
quash interest because of the newfound complexity.

    This idea has been proposed to death.  It's a good idea.  Let's PLEASE
discuss this _one_ newsgroup and put it up to a vote.  If we also need
comp.graphics.formats & friends, we can also discuss this -- IN THE
FUTURE.

______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Hollasch                /      Arizona State University (Tempe, Arizona)
hollasch@enuxha.eas.asu.edu  /  uunet!mimsy!oddjob!noao!asuvax!enuxha!hollasch