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

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

  1. r.p.d.zlr
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Actually, given the *huge* proportion of "YYYY" votes and highly
    limited number of abstentions and "No" votes, I'm inclined to disagree
    with "choice". "Choice" implies there was a decision, and having
    looked at the results I don't think very many people gave their votes
    a lot of thought at all. Take the rangefinder group for example; it
    got voted through 336:34 and last I checked the sole example of this
    camera type to date, the Epson R-D1, isn't even shipping until
    November 1st at an RRP of $2999 - hardly a mass market camera!

    Keeping RPD for general discussion and splitting off stuff specific to
    P&S and SLR cameras I can understand, maybe ZLRs too if there is
    enough *genuine* interest, but my money is still on tumbleweed in the
    rangefinder group.

    To save you looking, yes, I voted. Like this, in fact:

    P+S: yes
    SLR: yes
    ZLR: abstain (if there's enough interest, then go for it)
    RF: no (vote to create it later if they take off)

    PS. If you *did* consider your votes and went with "YYYY"; good for
    you and please disregard the non-applicable dig above, but I'm curious
    as to your reasons why.

    Andy Blanchard, Oct 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roland Karlsson

    Matt Ion Guest

    If you missed it, you weren't paying attention - there've been MASSIVE
    threads on the topic for the last three months. The way I have Mozilla
    set up, it expands threads with new messages; these have been impossible
    to miss. There ahve been numerous discussions along various stages of
    the process, then endless notices of the upcoming vote.
    Matt Ion, Oct 23, 2004
  4. Roland Karlsson

    Matt Ion Guest

    I'll second that.

    I've only been here a few months, since just before the RFDs started...
    never really worried about it enough to get involved and for that matter
    don't care either way about the outcome, but I will agree that it's hard
    to keep up with things - I have to start up Mozilla at least once a day
    or I get warnings about there being over 500 new message headers.
    That's a lot to sort through, especially when a good 50% of the
    discussion seems to be people soliciting advice on which digital P&S
    camera to buy, something that neither interests me, nor in which do I
    have the experience to contribute. Even if that alone were broken off
    into a separate group, it would help immensely.

    I'm interested more in photography topics in general, and specifically
    those related to my Digital Rebel, so a separate SLR group will be
    welcome, IF if gets the traffic... if not, then maybe the offloaded
    traffic to other groups will make rpd more usable. Either way, I have
    the option to subscribe to one, both, or all; read the ones that hold me
    interest, participate in those I want to, and ignore or unsubscribe
    those that have nothing for me. I fail to see why splitting off more
    sub-groups is a bad thing.
    So did anyone actually define the term "zlr"? I know what P&S is (we
    used to call them "PhD cameras - Press here, Dummy"). My interest lies
    in slr-systems, and more general topics... so what do I care about the
    existence of groups that don't interest me (rhetorical question, btw,
    not aimed at anyone in particular). I also don't subscribe to
    alt.sexy.bald.captains either, but that doesn't mean I disagree with its
    Yup... and hopefully will be more readable as some of the more specific
    noise moves to other sub-groups.
    Matt Ion, Oct 23, 2004
  5. Woodchuck Bill, Oct 23, 2004
  6. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    No, that is not how the marketing people who invented the name use it.
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 23, 2004
  7. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    The CFV was posted in rec.photo.digital twice over a two-week period.
    Votes are held over more than two weeks precisely so that people who go
    away for a while won't miss them.

    You probably missed it due to the exact reason we need the new groups.
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 23, 2004
  8. Actually the voting period was 21-days.
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 23, 2004
  9. Roland Karlsson

    Steve Young Guest

    I've felt the same way

    Roland, the whole process was taken away from the people here in the hopes
    the ballot box would be stuffed and they would have their new groups.
    There was little regard for people who actually use the current groups.
    The box was stuffed and look what happened. Very little of this has made
    much sense to me. Look at the voting list and see how many people you can
    actually recognize or validate as having any posting history with the
    identification used to vote. After fairly close securitization, it is my
    contention that between 2/3 and 3/4 of the votes are bogus.
    No, I tried to warn, but a few people get their jollies by lying about me
    and trying to shout me down. A day only has so much energy and vigor and
    I'm finding I have less I'm willing to spend on those who purposely and
    continuously mislead.

    Chalk it up as another big 8 blunder :(

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Oct 23, 2004
  10. Not in any subgroup of rec.photo.digital. So your situation is
    unaffected by the recent vote.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 23, 2004
  11. Roland Karlsson

    Steve Young Guest

    I'm betting they missed it because they're not familiar with the process
    and what they saw didn't register. Too, it amazes me how people think a
    few hundred messages a day is unreadable. Do you spend any time reading
    some of the more popular Microsoft groups? Over there, a busy group would
    be measured in thousands of messages a day.

    I also think it was a big mistake not to include the affected groups in
    the on-going discussions. Before one says they were, please review the
    threads from news.groups and notice the group snekking that occurred. Alan
    Brown got snarled in one of those tussles.

    Steve Young
    Steve Young, Oct 23, 2004
  12. Roland Karlsson

    Ken Tough Guest

    You could well be right. very sorry i missed it.
    I'll get it next time.
    Ken Tough, Oct 23, 2004
  13. Roland Karlsson

    Matt Ion Guest

    So what? So some new sub-groups get created. What's wrong with that?
    Again, so what? Nothing's stopping them from continuing to use the same
    current groups.

    Those want to use the new groups can.

    Those who don't can continue using the existing groups.

    Why is this such a big deal?
    Matt Ion, Oct 23, 2004
  14. Roland Karlsson

    Roger Guest

    There had been so much stuff about another group that was out in left
    field when I saw it I thought it was another crackpot post and kill
    filed it without reading it.

    Of which I still think separating the group into two parts is a bad

    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    Roger, Oct 23, 2004
  15. Roland Karlsson

    Roger Guest

    No, for me it was simply there had been so much noise (lot of posts)
    about starting new groups with no substance I kill filed them all.
    So set it without limits.
    I usually have several thousand headers per day, but I follow quite a
    few groups. I just skim them though.
    I just look at the headers, read the ones of interest, kill fill the
    weird ones and then mark all read.


    Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    Roger, Oct 23, 2004
  16. Yes - the Oly E10 and E20 are ZLR. Actually I don't know
    of any other digital cameras that are. So - currently it is
    100% uninteresting to create any ZLR forum. Just as it is
    100% uninteresting to create a range-finder forum - there are
    currently none.

    Alfred Molon's signature talked about 8080 and 5060. They
    are not ZLR. So - what wrong with my post?

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 23, 2004
  17. It is used thus - the Oly E10 and E20 are ZLR. They don't
    have interchangable lenses. So - how do you think ZLR
    is defined?

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 23, 2004
  18. Nope!

    The only ZLR I know of are E10 and E20.
    There might be more - but the G2 is not.

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 23, 2004
  19. Why then create already obsolete groups like zlr and
    range-finder and point+shoot? The only one that is useful
    is slr-system.

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 23, 2004
  20. Same here - but it was a mental kill-file.

    Roland Karlsson, Oct 23, 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.