Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics,rec.arts.comics.misc
From: wkaufman@us.oracle.com (William Kaufman)
Subject: Re: RAC
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 15:39:09 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BuG1Gu.E1G@news.udel.edu> lmlc@brahms.udel.edu (Carolyn M Chandler) writes:
] But who would it hurt to get say, 3 new rac.xxx newsgroups?

    This may still happen.  If we find that rac.misc is getting too big,
you may see another RFD (Request For Discussion of new newsgroup
creation).  In fact, I fully expect to see such by the end of the
academic year.

] If these groups
] were getting enought use i cant see how this would be bad. for instance
] make like 5 new groups then those who arent being read enough would be
] joined togther.

    Reorganization is a large headache: there are always people
complaining that they aren't getting the new groups when the old ones
are about to disappear.  Hey, just look at rac over the last week.  It's
much better to get a good reorg the first time.

] I think many people would like not to have to see stuff
] about they dont read, so by making more newsgroups we could help 
] solve this for everyone.

    Yeah, the thing is, when you want to create a new group, you have to
get a lot of other people to agree.  (I seem to remember that it's at
least 200 people, and 2/3rds of all voters.)

    Also, consider that the two main justifications for creating a new
group are: a) that it has high enough traffic to warrant creation; and,
b) that enough people *don't* want to read it.  These are largely
contradictory, which explains the resistance to group creation.

    Looking at the alternatives you presented in article
<BuFIK5.C8C@news.udel.edu>:

] Rac.Marvel		(so i/others wouldnt have to read about this stuff)
] rac.DC

    Company-wise splits had a couple of problems: where to crossovers
go?  And discussions abound about relative merits--prime crosspost
fodder.  (But your complaint about Marvel echoes a lot of people's
concerns: that's largely the reason rac.xbooks was invented.)

] rac.Black & white

    Should, say, _Hate_, the Madonna biography, and _Cherry_ go into the
same group just because of format?  And, what happens when a comic goes
from b&w to color, like _Zot_ did?

] rac. independent or rac.Valiant/image/dark horse

    rac.indie had the problem of what counts as "indie".  Now that Image
had (for one short month) a larger market share than DC, is it still
indie?

    Plus the crossover problem: DC is doing Batman vs. Predator, Batman
vs. Judge Dredd, and (coming soon to a store near you) Batman vs.
Grendel.  Where do these discussions go?

    rac.superheroes was also considered, but was found too vague.  What
fits, what doesn't?  Some said _Sandman_ and _Hellblazer_ fit, because
superheroes often make appearances, and the main characters' had
identifiable costumes; other (myself included) felt that since the main
character and intent wasn't superheroific (?!?), but fantasy and horror,
respectively, they shouldn't.  I'd still vote for a rac.fantasy or
rac.horror, but they just wouldn't get enough traffic to warrant it.

    Before anyone posts a RFD, why don't we let this sit for a while,
like two months?  We haven't really seen what the new structure looks
like--how big will rac.misc get when rac is removed?  If it really is a
pain, we can reexamine this at year's end, OK?

                                           -- Bill K.

Bill Kaufman,          | "Maybetheyhadaridiculousstatementtomakeaboutsomethingt
Corporate Lackey       |  heyhadntexperiencedPossiblySamhadadifferentopiniontha
wkaufman@us.oracle.com |  tnobodyeverconsideredimportant."  -- the Meat Puppets
Xref: sparky rec.arts.comics:22792 rec.arts.comics.misc:2152