From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Subject: Re: call for a few new newsgroups
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:35:51 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

dtiberio@csws7.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:

>	Proposed new groups:

>		1. creation of an Amiga music module group
>		2. creation of an Amiga 3d group
>		3. creation of an Amiga Video Toaster group

>Although comp.sys.amiga.audio is an excellent group that receives much
>support from serious MIDI users as well as casual module listeners, we
>feel that it should be left for the creation and discussion of musical
>creation and hardware discussions, along with musical programming.
>There are many who are also music module listeners and authors who
>would appreciate an area for distributing musical modules. While there
>are many who do not have FTP access, we see a need for a
>music module group to discuss musical preferrences in a more leisurely
>atmosphere...

We have only 129 articles in comp.sys.amiga.audio going back 11 days.
This works out to less than 12 articles per day.  Assuming the existing
"music module" discussion takes place there, there are two obvious
conclusions:  (1) The existing group is not overcrowded and doesn't need
splitting, and (2) "music module" discussions do not generate enough
bandwidth to deserve their own group (much less more than one, as you
are proposing).

>	Reasons for creating the new newsgroup:

>	2)	To provide a forum for music module distribution, which 
>	in uuencoded format may range from as little as 80k to 500k. Many 
>	uuencoded modules will be around 150k to 250k.

Binaries distribution groups are already frowned upon because they only
serve the small group of people who own the machine in question.  A group
devoted to music modules would serve a much smaller yet group.  At the 
very least, it'll never fly without being moderated.

Have you talked with the comp.binaries.amiga moderator?  "Binaries" does
not necessarily imply "executables".

>	3)	To reduce unwanted traffic in both cases; 
>	many are ired at technical or non-technical posts.

As I've indicated, there don't seem to be many of them.  You're going 
to get a certain amount of newbie-itis no matter what you do.

>GROUP #2 [3d graphics group]

>The Amiga community has long since been involved with 3d graphics.
>There are at least two mailing lists involving 3d software,
>specifically the Lightwave and Imagine mailing lists.  The Imagine list
>is known to have over 250 subscribers, and has traffic of about 15-20
>letters each day.

This is more reasonable.  Comp.sys.amiga.graphics gets about 21 articles
per day as far as I can tell, and you indicate most of the 3d traffic
is external to that.  We all know it's simpler to read news articles than
mailing lists.

However, you're suggesting five new groups, which is about four too many.
How about just "comp.sys.amiga.graphics.3d" or "comp.sys.amiga.3d-graphics"?  
[Is there a technical reason why "three-d" would be preferable to "3d"?]
Splitting groups into too-specific categories will only cause extra
crossposting and "where does this go" flame wars.

>Reasons for creating the newsgroup:

>	6)	To follow three dimensional graphics issues 
>	without impeding on the current traffic held by 
>	comp.sys.amiga.graphics, which receives approximately
>	30 - 40 new messages each day.

As I've indicated, more like 21 articles/day (256 going back 12 days here).

>	These newsgroups, if created, should continue to be
>	archived for the sake of those who do not have access
>	to newsgroups. It may also be argued that the newsgroup
>	should send mail to those who do not have access.

This is really outside the bounds of group-creation discussion.  If someone
can be found who has the space and wants to archive the group(s) they can,
and if someone can be found who wants to maintain a mail gateway they can.

>GROUP #3 [Video toaster group]

>Over two years ago the Video Toaster was just released.  In that two
>year period, it has become one of the most welcomed new video products
>to the Amiga community. There are many users of this system, including
>three dimensional modelers, video users, and animators. Many groups who
>do not currently receive Amiga video information can benefit greatly
>from this group.

Two objections:

1)	Groups contain discussion, they don't create it.  Can you show
	existing discussion of the toaster sufficient to create a group
	devoted the thing.  There already exist several groups devoted
	to computer graphics and video production.

2)	The Video Toaster doesn't only run on the amiga (well, it does,
	but you know what I mean :-) so why should the group be placed
	under comp.sys.amiga?

If you can show enough (prospective) volume I'd support the group, but
would prefer something like "comp.graphics.video-toaster" or
"rec.video.toaster".  Heck, create "comp.graphics.video" or "comp.video" 
if you like, and put the toaster group there.

>Reasons for the creation of this group:

>	1)	To bring information dealing with the Video Toaster
>	to prospective users.
>	5)	To promote knowledge of the Video Toaster to non-users.

These are pretty much the same thing, unless you're going to prop
peoples' eyes open and force them to read the group.  Evangelism like
this implies is out of place on usenet, which has this oft-ignored rule
about avoiding commercialism.

>	6)	To discuss software related topics, such as animation
>	and ray traced graphics.

>	7)	To provide information dealing with support in the
>	form of 3d objects, 24 bit pictures, and other utilities
>	found on FTP sites or posted in uuencoded format.

Wouldn't this discussion be more at home in c.s.a.graphics or your
proposed 3-d group?  Or must the toasterers be segregated from all the
rest of the graphics hackers?


In summary:  A group for 3-d graphics might fly, but the rest of them
just aren't reasonable right now.
-- 
Kenneth Herron                                       kherron@ms.uky.edu
University of Kentucky                                  +1 606 257 2975
Department of Mathematics
                                              Flame early, flame often.