Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:18544 news.groups:32822 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!wk207!uselton From: uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) Newsgroups: comp.graphics,news.groups Subject: Re: Where Is Everybody? (RFD: comp.graphics.???) Summary: Let's handle one thing at a time; not diffuse the effort. Message-ID: <1991Jun11.164854.23160@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 11 Jun 91 16:48:54 GMT References: <1991Jun10.140930.23238@maths.tcd.ie> Sender: Sam Uselton Followup-To: news.groups Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Lines: 103 In article <1991Jun10.140930.23238@maths.tcd.ie> jorice@maths.tcd.ie (Jonathan Rice) writes: >Things seem to be firming up well with regard to our new central group - >Adrian's call for votes on its name is timely. However, we should not treat >this group in isolation. I think most of us see it as only one group out of >maybe four or five new comp.graphics groups, each with a well-defined >charter to handle separate areas of the computer graphics field, and discussion >about these new groups has been virtually absent for a while. If we go >ahead and create *just* comp.graphics.theory (or .research, or whatever we >decide upon), then yes, we've gained, but we could have gained more by doing >a total reorganisation. Adrian is asking for more participation in the c.g.research discussion. You're asking for MUCH more. I would rather do the small thing well, rather than making an attempt at the bigger reorganization, and having it fail for lack of effort/enthusiasm. (Which seems likely to me given the slack that has fallen into the current discussion.) >Can a netexpert tell me if we need to send out a >Call For Discussion for *each* of the groups we plan to create, or can we do >it under the umbrella of "comp.graphics reorganisation" and use our existing >CFD? I'm no net-expert, but the *current* CFD is *not* c.g.reorganization. >Whichever, we *urgently* need to discuss division of responsibility >between these new groups if they're to be put in place about the same time as >comp.graphics.theory/.research. I see no particular reason why additional groups *need* to be put into place at the same time, *especially* since I'm not sure of how many, which ones, etc are needed. Therefore no *urgency*. > >To start the ball rolling again, here's a rough outline of groups I think >would be sensible: > >comp.graphics.theory/.research/.???? > Moderated group discussing state-of-the-art computer graphics theory. > *Everyone* wants this group. Hopefully we all want the same thing. We > shall see, when Adrian gets his draft charter going. > I think discussion on the charter is worthwhile at this point. I took a swing at it. Anyone else? Oh yes, I favor the originally proposed name, c.g.research. >comp.graphics.pixutils/.pictures/.picstuff/.???? > Unmoderated group discussing anything that has to do with 2-D images > (manipulators, convertors, viewers, ftp sites). > Essentially the function of alt.graphics.pixutils, moved under the > comp.graphics wing and with charter expanded to make it deal with *all* > of the tiresome image-related topics swamping comp.graphics now. > Moving the alt group into comp.graphics.... has some merit. But I'd like a distinct discussion just to keep things clear. >comp.graphics.applications/.software/.???? > Unmoderated group discussing particular applications - e.g. "How do I > do in ?" > >comp.graphics.hardware > Unmoderated group. Discussions of c.g. hardware not "cutting-edge" > enough to be in comp.graphics.theory/.research. You know, general > hardware stuff. > >comp.graphics.announce > Unmoderated. Announcements of interest to c.g. people - conferences, > new ftp sites, new products, etc. This group may not be necessary if > people think that the individual specialty groups can handle > announcements too. I think it'd be nice, though. > I would rather leave these three plus c.g.misc (below) in the current comp.graphics and see how it works before even considering additional modificatiosn. >comp.graphics.visualization > As is. > Of course. >comp.graphics.misc > Misc stuff that doesn't fit into any of the other categories easily. > General stuff. Unmoderated. > >Are people thinking somewhat along these lines? Whether you are or not, let's >*talk* about it and broaden the discussion out from just the central group. > Well, I told you what *I* think. And it includes "Let's keep the discussion focussed on *one* issue." > >o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o >| Jonathan Rice | Email: jorice@cs.tcd.ie | He was a common fly | >|----------------------| Tel: 353.1.772941 x2156 (w)| With a taste for fashion | >|Computer Science Dept.| 353.1.6245415 (h)| They were thrown together| >| Trinity College | Fax: 353.1.772204 | In a heat of passion | >| Dublin 2, | woof /\___/ | - "Human Fly", | >| Ireland. | /| |\ | The Horseflies | >o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o Sam Uselton uselton@nas.nasa.gov employed by CSC working for NASA (Ames) speaking for myself