Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > VOTING CLOSED for R.P.D. reorganization

Reply
Thread Tools

VOTING CLOSED for R.P.D. reorganization

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
>From: "Dave" http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

>Well they sure seemed to have missed the Stromboli clan.


Well you know those Italian goombahs all have big families. I counted 27
Strombolis.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
No, the exclusion of the Strombolis, in and of themselves, wouldn't
throw this vote the other way. But somebody went to a lot of work to
"create" a lot of votes. I don't recognize 75% of the people on the
list. Who know if they're legit or not? Are they really legitimate
votes if they're made by the same person? It just throws this whole CFV
process into doubt and makes me care even less about this group.

Dave

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Woodchuck Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:Xns9588EC96A8DF7bswr607h4
@130.133.1.4:

> rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
> rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> rec.photo.digital.zlr


I missed that any voting was going on. Maybe the r.p.d needs some
kind of split, maybe not. This proposed split is not to my liking
though. It is rather artificial.

It is not obvious to divide the group according to camera type at all.
There are lots of cameras that are neither of the types.
There are no (0) rangefinder cameras today.
The term point+shoot is totally misused. No one knows what it is.
The term zlr? Hmmmm ... ask and see how many knows what it mean.
Are evf zlr? Are evf with exchangable lenses slr-systems?
Are rather advanced cameras point+shoot? Are all cameras that can be
used in a point+shoot mode point+shoot?

This division sounds more reasonable:

rec.photo.digital.camera
rec.photo.digital.printing
rec.photo.digital.editing
....

BTW - what kind of authority has this poll?
Does a yes voting mean that the groups are going to be activated?
Or is it onla a lobbying poll to convince the real authorities?



/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Roland Karlsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns958AE0526EDF0klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> BTW - what kind of authority has this poll?


This was an official CFV with full "authority".

> Does a yes voting mean that the groups are going to be activated?


The groups will be created in about four or five days.

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Woodchuck Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Roland Karlsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns958AE0526EDF0klotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> I missed that any voting was going on.


Why didn't you vote? The CFV was posted twice. There were also 4 RFD posts.
Why didn't you express your views during the discussion phase?

--
Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Bean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
On 22 Oct 2004 20:09:01 GMT, Woodchuck Bill wrote:

> Roland Karlsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:Xns958AE0526EDF0klotjohan@130.133.1.4:
>
>> I missed that any voting was going on.

>
> Why didn't you vote? The CFV was posted twice. There were also 4 RFD posts.
> Why didn't you express your views during the discussion phase?


A lot (most?) users of a rec.* group don't pay attention to the news.*
groups so find out too late. Postings of RFDs and CFVs to the rec.* groups
often get lost in the background noise. It's a shame, but **** happens.

--
John Bean

Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes (E. W. Dijkstra)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Woodchuck Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns958AA45F37B2Dbswr607h4@130.133.1.4:

>> I missed that any voting was going on.

>
> Why didn't you vote? The CFV was posted twice. There were also 4 RFD
> posts. Why didn't you express your views during the discussion phase?
>


Because I missed that any voting was going on.

You have to understand that several people here have proposed
bogus votings. And after a while your brain sort away all
about votings.

This is a shame really. This proposal is really bad IMHO.
It will be almost impossible to know where to post. And
I already think that the content here is rather thin.
Thinning it out more will make the groups rather uninteresting.

All IMHO of course.



/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Self
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Roland Karlsson notes:

>This is a shame really. This proposal is really bad IMHO.
>It will be almost impossible to know where to post. And
>I already think that the content here is rather thin.
>Thinning it out more will make the groups rather uninteresting.
>

So don't use the excess groups. They'll eventually shrivel and not be a
nuisance, if they ever grow enough to become nuisances.

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
 
Reply With Quote
 
usenet@imagenoir.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Kibo informs me that "Tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> stated that:

>Agreed. This has been a bad idea from the start and has rapidly grown into
>an incredibly stupid pile of crap. There is no need to destroy the digital
>newsgroup by turning it into four overlapping and completely wasteful
>groups.


If you object to it so strongly, perhaps you should've voted against it,
instead of bitching about it here, now that the vote's over.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
usenet@imagenoir.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-22-2004
Kibo informs me that "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> stated
that:

>"Woodchuck Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> Actually, R.P.D would not be broken up should any of all of the new
>> groups pass the vote. It would stay intact.

>
>Readers come from somewhere. We would be asking them to possibly read 4 or
>5 groups, instead of 1 or 2. Though this would allow 35mm to die a
>peaceful death, as fewer readers are interested in strictly film.


Well, seeing as you've never shown the slightest interest in
photography, there's no need for you to pollute the new groups, is
there?

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PhotoFortnight: Voting Almost Closed Sean O'Dwyer Digital Photography 0 07-14-2005 11:10 PM
4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization Thad Digital Photography 75 10-22-2004 03:31 AM
Reorganization CFV James Silverton Digital Photography 2 10-09-2004 10:12 PM
Vote *NO* on reorganization Robert McClenon Digital Photography 19 09-13-2004 03:55 PM
Re: United Seeks 3rd Extension On Reorganization Plan Imya Rek Cisco 3 02-16-2004 12:26 AM



Advertisments