4th RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganization

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Thad, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. "Woodchuck Bill" skribis:
    > "James Silverton" <> wrote in [...]
    >
    > > my current inclination would be to vote yes on rpd.slr-systems, ~zlr
    > > and ~rangefinder and no on ~point+shoot.

    >
    > That's fair, but you might want to at least consider voting "abstain" on
    > any groups you do not plan to use. If they do not receive enough "yes"
    > votes on their own merit, then they are not justified in being created.


    Is there an possibility to add a clarification
    in the CfV?

    "Please vote Yes on the groups you want to read,
    no on the groups you think are damaging, and
    otherwise Abstain."

    (The exact wording should be improved.)

    In a multi-group proposal, more people will
    vote for (or against) groups they aren't
    interested in, just since they are voting
    anyway.


    Paul
     
    Paul Ebermann, Sep 11, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. "Paul Ebermann" <> wrote in
    news:-fqdn.de:

    >> That's fair, but you might want to at least consider voting "abstain"
    >> on any groups you do not plan to use. If they do not receive enough
    >> "yes" votes on their own merit, then they are not justified in being
    >> created.

    >
    > Is there an possibility to add a clarification
    > in the CfV?
    >
    > "Please vote Yes on the groups you want to read,
    > no on the groups you think are damaging, and
    > otherwise Abstain."
    >
    > (The exact wording should be improved.)
    >
    > In a multi-group proposal, more people will
    > vote for (or against) groups they aren't
    > interested in, just since they are voting
    > anyway.


    Unfortunately not. IMHO, this part of the CFV process should be improved.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 11, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. "James Silverton" <> wrote in message
    news:4141beb4$0$6926$...
    >
    > > > > > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > > > > > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    > > > > >
    > > > >

    >
    > I'm afraid that this sounds a rather pompous announcement, but I

    think
    > I have made up my mind about the proposals. I'm not sure that all

    the
    > groups will be viable especially rpd.point+shoot which, as I have
    > said, seems a rather disparaging name and I am not completely
    > convinced by a need for the separation of ~systems and ~zlr.

    However,
    > my current inclination would be to vote yes on rpd.slr-systems, ~zlr
    > and ~rangefinder and no on ~point+shoot.
    >
    > Judging by the reduction in the number of contentious posts, I think
    > the time is approaching for a vote.
    >


    I see that I spoke a little too soon :) There's been quite a flood of
    posts today! For the record, I have not changed my opinions.
     
    James Silverton, Sep 11, 2004
    #43
  4. Paul J Gans <> writes:
    > By the way, the more groups, the easier it is for spammers to get
    > them all. It takes but a minute to put all the groups into the
    > headers and then they get five groups for the effort of spamming
    > one.


    Yeah - but excessive crossposting is a sure sign of a spammer, a
    cascader and a nutter - so just killing crossposts nets three types
    of bozo for the price of one. That evens it out.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 12, 2004
    #44
  5. Thad <> writes:
    > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder



    I liked the original proposal for "rec.photo.digital.slr" and intended
    to vote for that.

    Now - this has mutated into pure sillyness where one of the proposed
    groups "rec.photo.digital.rangefinder" seem to be created for cameras
    that does not yet exist and one of the others (rec.photo.digital.zlr)
    is for a very mariginal class of cameras. How much discussions on
    rangefinders and zlrs are there in RFD? Not a lot!

    I think it is time to step back a few notches and go back to the
    charter for "rec.photo.digital.slr" only.

    Should rangefinder and zlr material be on topic or not? I don't care.
    I would vote for a "rec.photo.digital.slr" if discussions about
    rangefinders and zlrs where included - and I would vote for a
    "rec.photo.digital.slr" if they by charter are relegated to the
    existing "catch-all" group ("rec.photo.digital") - and I would even
    vote for a "rec.photo.digital.slr" charter that skirted the issue
    entirely by not mentioning rangefinders and zlrs at all.

    But I will vote /against/ the creation of two new zombie groups,
    even if that stops "rec.photo.digital.slr" (which is a new group
    I want and think merits creation) from being created.

    Zombie groups (i.e. groups that have too few real users to sustain
    on-topic traffic) is a major pest on Usenet. They tend to be taken
    over by unsavoury elements and used for out-of-band exchanges
    (e.g. warez). There are a lot of zombies in alt.* - and we certainly
    don't want new ones in big 8.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    «To live outside the law, you must be honest.» (Bob Dylan)
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Sep 12, 2004
    #45
  6. Thad

    Guest

    Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:

    >Now - this has mutated into pure sillyness where one of the proposed
    >groups "rec.photo.digital.rangefinder" seem to be created for cameras
    >that does not yet exist and one of the others (rec.photo.digital.zlr)
    >is for a very mariginal class of cameras. How much discussions on
    >rangefinders and zlrs are there in RFD? Not a lot!


    I agree with that. This is the result of design by committee, methinks.

    If we're wanting an "advanced" digital group, why not
    rec.photo.digital.advanced? I've been involved in photography for quite
    some time, but the first time I've heard of a ZLR is in this discussion.
    Group names should not have unfamiliar abbreviations.

    There are already a slew of rec.photo.* newsgroups that get hardly any use.
    I don't see how adding to the chaos will do much good. While I was leaning
    in favor of the very first call for discussion, I'm against the latest.
    It's just becoming too absurd.
     
    , Sep 12, 2004
    #46
  7. Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

    > But I will vote /against/ the creation of two new zombie groups,
    > even if that stops "rec.photo.digital.slr" (which is a new group
    > I want and think merits creation) from being created.


    The votes for each proposal are counted independently.

    But -- I don't think you need to vote "no" for groups which
    merely have inadequate support. Wouldn't 100 "yes" votes
    (not counting FMJ or the Stromboli's) be adquate evidence that
    the group has some support.
    --
    This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
    I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
    and it bounces, a second try might work.
    However, please reply in newsgroup.
     
    Arthur L. Rubin, Sep 12, 2004
    #47
  8. Thad

    Guy Macon Guest

    <> says...
    >
    >Gisle Hannemyr <> wrote:
    >
    >>Now - this has mutated into pure sillyness where one of the proposed
    >>groups "rec.photo.digital.rangefinder" seem to be created for cameras
    >>that does not yet exist and one of the others (rec.photo.digital.zlr)
    >>is for a very mariginal class of cameras. How much discussions on
    >>rangefinders and zlrs are there in RFD? Not a lot!

    >
    >I agree with that. This is the result of design by committee, methinks.


    Design by someone doing other things in order to avoid following the
    advice of a comiteee is more like it.

    The majority of those commenting like rec.photo.digital.slr better than
    any alternative so far proposed, but do not like the charter saying that
    the newsgroup is for removable lens cameras. Rather than follow the
    advice (which, by the way, the proponent is allowed to ignore) and change
    the charter, the proponent changed the newsgroup name and added other
    groups. Sticking with rec.photo.digital.slr would have been a better
    choice, and if the proponent insists on keeping language in the charter
    that most people commenting on it do not like, he should do so without
    apology and see what the voters say about his decision.
     
    Guy Macon, Sep 12, 2004
    #48
  9. Thad wrote:

    > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    >


    any idea what DAY the CFV will be? I am looking forward to voting against this
    entire abortion and getting the subject matter off the group and getting back to
    dslr and things related.. discussion

    sheesh! SICK and tired of this!!
    at least the trolls are some times amusing..

    --
    chas
    The new Canon DSLR elist. no trolls, etc
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canon-dslr/join

    ....
     
    schuetzen - RKBA!, Sep 12, 2004
    #49
  10. Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in
    news::

    > Rather than follow the
    > advice (which, by the way, the proponent is allowed to ignore) and change
    > the charter, the proponent changed the newsgroup name and added other
    > groups.


    That's not exactly true. I decided to propose the ZLR group with David.
    Thad was not involved in that decision. The p&s group was proposed by
    Alexis, without anyone else's knowledge. Rose was working on the
    Rangefinder group on her own. It was the NAN volunteers who asked Thad and
    Alan to come to an agreement with the proponents of the other proposal so
    they could all be on one ballot.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 12, 2004
    #50
  11. Woodchuck Bill <> wrote in
    news:Xns956297A10B0Cbswr607h4@130.133.1.4:

    > I decided to propose the ZLR group with David.
    > Thad was not involved in that decision.


    I would like to add that we did contact Thad for permission to use some of
    the wording in his charter, before we finally submitted the proposal to
    NAN. The proponent of the p&s proposal submitted her proposal to NAN
    without contacting Thad.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 12, 2004
    #51
  12. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    <> wrote:

    > I agree with that. This is the result of design by committee, methinks.


    It sure does look that way.

    I would *greatly* prefer the .slr name rather than the current ugly one.
    But it was getting a huge amount of opposition.

    Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr name,
    define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to interpretation as to
    what "SLR" means. The group participants can sort it out just fine. That
    would neatly sidestep the objections of the folks who, for some bizarre
    reason I still can't understand, think that the technical definition of
    "SLR" has anything at all to do with anything.

    > If we're wanting an "advanced" digital group, why not
    > rec.photo.digital.advanced?


    That's not what we were wanting. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea,
    but that wasn't the intent of this proposal.

    > I've been involved in photography for quite some time, but the first time
    > I've heard of a ZLR is in this discussion. Group names should not have
    > unfamiliar abbreviations.


    ZLR is a horrid name invented by marketing departments at camera companies.
    It's not in wide usage outside advertising. Unfortunately, there isn't
    another name for that type of camera -- but I'm sure as soon as someone
    suggests a name for the group that is even remotely better, the proponents
    will happily adopt it. :) But no one has come up with one.

    Unfortunately, that simple fact might doom that group to fail the vote.
    There are a lot of people using those cameras, most of whom have never
    heard of a "ZLR".

    > While I was leaning in favor of the very first call for discussion, I'm
    > against the latest. It's just becoming too absurd.


    "Absurd" was my reaction to the 4th RFD as well. This entire thing is
    getting way out of hand.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 12, 2004
    #52
  13. Thad

    Guy Macon Guest

    Jeremy Nixon <> says...

    >Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr name,
    >define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to interpretation as to
    >what "SLR" means. The group participants can sort it out just fine.


    Yes. Please.
     
    Guy Macon, Sep 12, 2004
    #53
  14. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:00:31 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <>
    wrote:



    >Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr name,
    >define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to interpretation as to
    >what "SLR" means. The group participants can sort it out just fine.



    Yes, they can. If someone thinks he has an slr, he'll post to the
    group based on its name. If others think he has an slr, there will be
    discussion.


    >That
    >would neatly sidestep the objections of the folks who, for some bizarre
    >reason I still can't understand, think that the technical definition of
    >"SLR" has anything at all to do with anything.



    Uh... the prompt for that was Thad, who wanted to redefine it. When
    that was challenged, he instead decided to change the group name.
    Took the wrong turn at the fork.

    My objection was the attempt to define the topic in a way that didn't
    match the group name. I realize defining topics in Charters is mostly
    futile, but consider a Charter as a test of the proponent's thinking
    ability. It is my view a proponent is not creating a group for
    himself. He is creating a group for those who will use it, and use is
    mostly based on its name. But, it seemed to me, that the early
    Charters revealed Thad had an attitude that he was creating a group
    for himself. Or, put another way, he was considering his own desires
    rather than predicting the preferences of "customers" and addressing
    them.


    >"Absurd" was my reaction to the 4th RFD as well. This entire thing is
    >getting way out of hand.



    Yea. Can't get one group proposal right, so the "solution" is to
    propose four groups. Yea, sure.
     
    edward ohare, Sep 12, 2004
    #54
  15. Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in
    news::

    >>Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr
    >>name, define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to
    >>interpretation as to what "SLR" means. The group participants can
    >>sort it out just fine.

    >
    > Yes. Please.


    That would create too much overlap with the ZLR group.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 12, 2004
    #55
  16. Thad

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Woodchuck Bill <> wrote:

    >>> Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr
    >>> name, define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to
    >>> interpretation as to what "SLR" means. The group participants can
    >>> sort it out just fine.

    >>
    >> Yes. Please.

    >
    > That would create too much overlap with the ZLR group.


    Does anyone with a ZLR think they have an SLR?

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Sep 12, 2004
    #56
  17. Jeremy Nixon <> wrote in
    news::

    > Woodchuck Bill <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> Actually, I quite like the recent suggestion to go back to the .slr
    >>>> name, define the group to be about SLRs, and leave it up to
    >>>> interpretation as to what "SLR" means. The group participants can
    >>>> sort it out just fine.
    >>>
    >>> Yes. Please.

    >>
    >> That would create too much overlap with the ZLR group.

    >
    > Does anyone with a ZLR think they have an SLR?
    >


    My camera, the Coolpix 5700 is commonly referred to as an "SLR-like"
    camera. For a while, I considered it a dSLR..until I was corrected by an
    SLR owner who later told me that I wasted money of "that piece of crap" and
    I should have bought a dSLR. I suspect that a dSLR group with no
    clarification with bring in equally as many ZLR owners as dSLR owners. I
    don't want to scroll through threads about lenses, and I certainly don't
    want to be told on a regular basis that for "a little more cash I can get a
    dSLR". The need is warranted for a ZLR group, separate from the dSLR group,
    and the line of division needs to be spelled out in advance.

    --
    Bill
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Sep 12, 2004
    #57
  18. Thad

    edward ohare Guest

    On 12 Sep 2004 22:51:52 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <>
    wrote:

    >Jeremy Nixon <> wrote in
    >news::



    >> Does anyone with a ZLR think they have an SLR?
    >>

    >
    >My camera, the Coolpix 5700 is commonly referred to as an "SLR-like"
    >camera. For a while, I considered it a dSLR..until I was corrected by an
    >SLR owner who later told me that I wasted money of "that piece of crap" and
    >I should have bought a dSLR.



    Nice guy. If all the slr-system people are like him, I can see why
    you want a separate group.


    >I suspect that a dSLR group with no
    >clarification with bring in equally as many ZLR owners as dSLR owners. I
    >don't want to scroll through threads about lenses, and I certainly don't
    >want to be told on a regular basis that for "a little more cash I can get a
    >dSLR". The need is warranted for a ZLR group, separate from the dSLR group,
    >and the line of division needs to be spelled out in advance.



    Hmmmm.... had a thought of when zooms for 35mm became decent that
    there were a bunch of people who stuck a 35-70 zoom on the front of
    their slr and never took it off. I believe there were some slrs that
    came standard with such a zoom. I imagine folks with digital
    slr-system cameras who have done that probably ought to be directed to
    the zlr group. Hey, Thad, what do you think?
     
    edward ohare, Sep 13, 2004
    #58
  19. Thad

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that edward ohare
    <> stated that:

    >On 12 Sep 2004 22:51:52 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <>
    >wrote:
    >>My camera, the Coolpix 5700 is commonly referred to as an "SLR-like"
    >>camera. For a while, I considered it a dSLR..until I was corrected by an
    >>SLR owner who later told me that I wasted money of "that piece of crap" and
    >>I should have bought a dSLR.

    >
    >Nice guy. If all the slr-system people are like him, I can see why
    >you want a separate group.


    Most SLR users aren't like that, but as with any equipment-orientated
    group there's always a few arseholes who're under the illusion that the
    size of their penis is proportional to the amount of money they spent on
    their kit.

    >>I suspect that a dSLR group with no
    >>clarification with bring in equally as many ZLR owners as dSLR owners. I
    >>don't want to scroll through threads about lenses, and I certainly don't
    >>want to be told on a regular basis that for "a little more cash I can get a
    >>dSLR". The need is warranted for a ZLR group, separate from the dSLR group,
    >>and the line of division needs to be spelled out in advance.


    I would've thought they'd gravitate to RPD, just as they do now.

    >Hmmmm.... had a thought of when zooms for 35mm became decent that
    >there were a bunch of people who stuck a 35-70 zoom on the front of
    >their slr and never took it off. I believe there were some slrs that
    >came standard with such a zoom.


    Yep. I'd guess that at least 3/4 of SLR owners have never removed the
    generic zoom that they got with the camera. That said, those people
    aren't all that likely to be talking about their camera on Usenet.

    > I imagine folks with digital
    >slr-system cameras who have done that probably ought to be directed to
    >the zlr group.


    Or to RPD.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Sep 13, 2004
    #59
  20. Thad

    Ken Tough Guest

    Thad <> wrote:

    > REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.zlr
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.point+shoot
    > unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.rangefinder
    >
    >This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the reorganization of
    >the digital photography groups in the rec.photo.digital hierarchy.


    Is it possible to vote yes to the creation of a subset of these groups?
    Personally, I'd only support rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. That one
    would also tend to help a professional/amateur distinction, so obviating
    the need for such groups.

    Other possibilities, it seems to me, are:

    rec.photo.digital.storage-media
    rec.photo.digital.software

    Judging by the current volume of headers, the second would have a
    lot of posts (off-line processing, photoshop etc), and periodically
    there's bursts of posts that fit into the storage category. Both
    groups are recognisable by a novice, whereas a novice user wouldn't
    be sure which group to use, for all the groups in the original RFD.

    'Novice' discussion should as much as possible be contained higher
    up the heirarchy tree (e.g. within rec.photo.digital), and this would
    be consist of most of the point+shoot posts. More experienced or
    professional or focussed posts are then directed to the leaf groups.

    --
    Ken Tough
     
    Ken Tough, Sep 13, 2004
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lionel

    RFD: rec.photo.digital reorganisation

    Lionel, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    332
    Lionel
    Jun 18, 2004
  2. Thad
    Replies:
    217
    Views:
    2,826
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Sep 8, 2004
  3. Thad

    3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Thad, Sep 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    709
    Mark M
    Sep 8, 2004
  4. Steve Young

    Re: 3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr

    Steve Young, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    311
    Steve Young
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    802
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page