poll - did you miss the voting about dividing r.p.d?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roland Karlsson, Oct 22, 2004.

  1. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    And when you have several thousand posts to look through just to find the
    threads that interest you, it can become frustrating very quickly. And
    then you give up on the group, usually slowly, over a period of time,
    after which you find you haven't bothered with it in weeks.
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 25, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roland Karlsson

    nick c Guest

    I hope so.
    nick c, Oct 25, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roland Karlsson

    nick c Guest

    If the political crap is omitted, there will be a lot less topics to
    wade through.
    nick c, Oct 25, 2004
  4. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    I explained it. The subject came up here and I posted my idea here. I
    have no interest in following news.groups, nor learning how to form
    usenet groups myself.

    I clearly did not blame anyone, but merely observed the *obvious* fact
    that if those who created the new groups had liked the ideas that I had
    publicly written about, then they would have incorporated the ideas.

    The people who formed the new groups are obviously more gadget oriented
    than process oriented. I suspect that the .slr group will have a small
    but dedicated following, and the .leica -- I mean .rangfinder group will
    have an even smaller, more dedicated following. Unless most of the
    people who post here migrate to the .zlr group, it won't get much
    because zlr isn't in the language. .pointandshoot will pretty clearly
    only get people who don't know much, and so one year from now we will be
    pretty much where we are now.

    bob, Oct 26, 2004
  5. bob wrote:
    That's not the case - the relevant suggestions and ideas /were/
    incorporated, but the proposed sub-groups were for camera types. Simply
    adding .printing or .software would have been out of context, and in any
    case the proposers and supporters may not have had the required knowledge
    of those subjects to do this properly.

    Preparing the Request For Discussion could be as simple as taking an
    existing one and editing it. Why not do it if you feel there is a need?
    Many would likely vote for it!

    David J Taylor, Oct 26, 2004
  6. True. But I suggest that most people who have cameras that the charter
    calls ZLRs don't think of them as ZLRs, and won't go to that group for
    questions or answers.
    With most of the traffice in rec.photo.digital, as before.

    Dave Martindale, Oct 26, 2004
  7. It has exposure compensation, and the ability to lock exposure either by
    half-pressing the shutter button, or for multiple frames. But manual
    exposure control means the ability to set aperture and f/number
    directly. The S400/S500 won't do that, while the A80 and G-series
    cameras will.

    Dave Martindale, Oct 26, 2004
  8. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    I guess they decided my ideas were irrelevant then, as they were not
    I would submit that a digital photographer with no knowledge of prints
    nor software probably doesn't have a great deal of knowledge about camera
    types either, which supports my supposition of "gearheads."
    I've already said this three times in this thread -- I don't really care.
    I'll participate in the discussion whereever it goes. In this case, I'm
    pretty sure it won't go far.

    bob, Oct 26, 2004
  9. That statement is not true, and unfair to all of the proponents, and to
    everyone else who participated in the process.

    We made no such decision about your ideas. There was an official discussion
    period that happened before the vote. Hundreds of posts. Four versions of
    the proposal were drafted before a vote was called. Feedback was all taken
    into account, and many changes were made. The entire process lasted almost
    three months.

    I don't recall reading a single post from you during that time. If you
    didn't participate it the RFD, how could you possibly expect us to read
    your mind, and include any of your ideas?
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 26, 2004
  10. (Dave Martindale) wrote in @mughi.cs.ubc.ca:

    My point is not that it is not a P&S according to the charter.
    It is a P&S according to the charter.

    My point is that the definition of P&S in the charter is meaningless.

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 26, 2004
  11. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    Stipulating that your statement is the truth, I must be hallucinating
    now, and I didn't really post anything. Sorry to have wasted your time.

    bob, Oct 27, 2004
  12. Roland Karlsson

    Frank ess Guest

    Methinks WC Bill doth protest too much. And at length. And often.

    The horse is dead. A former horse. Gone to join the Choir Eternal...
    Frank ess, Oct 27, 2004
  13. I'm not protesting. He said that we "decided" that his ideas were not
    relevent. How could we consider his ideas if he never made a post to the
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.