Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:18571 comp.graphics.visualization:664 alt.graphics.pixutils:1236 news.groups:32854 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate!adrianho From: adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) Newsgroups: comp.graphics,comp.graphics.visualization,alt.graphics.pixutils,news.groups Subject: Re: Where Is Everybody? (RFD: comp.graphics.???) Message-ID: Date: 13 Jun 91 00:45:58 GMT References: <1991Jun10.140930.23238@maths.tcd.ie> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 50 In-Reply-To: jorice@maths.tcd.ie's message of 10 Jun 91 14: 09:30 GMT 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. I wish -- I think I delayed too long in calling for votes, hence the current scramble. > 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. 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? Unless I'm very mistaken, several groups can be lumped together into one discussion and even one vote (else I'd think the current comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy would have taken AGES to create 8-). However, I believe that this general grouping must exist *from the start*, ie. from the CFD. (Modifications to individual group names and/or charters is of course permitted.) Somebody please correct me if I'm thoroughly mistaken. > 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. [ suggested groups deleted ] Several people have advanced various arguments against this, and I won't repeat them here. I'd just like to add that, IMHO, a significant fraction of the current traffic on all the graphics newsgroups could be deemed to be "system-specific" (I'm using this term very loosely), like VGA double-buffering or graphics file formats. As such, they are more appropriately dealt with somewhere in the comp.sys.* or even the existing graphics hierarchies. What's left after the removal of such traffic may not be sufficient to justify a plethora of issue-specific groups. I personally would prefer the creation of a single group which is conceptually divorced from all the existing groups, but whose charter (and name, hopefully) admits a broad base of discussion with a minimum overlap with the current groups. If, after a suitable period of time, we all feel that the base is _too_ broad, we can begin a new discussion about spawning off new groups. In this way, we can (hopefully) avoid the "horror" of comp.sys.amiga.*.