Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!hobbes!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Time for comp.robotics.research? (was Re: Splitting comp.robotics)
Organization: The Armory
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 10:59:34 GMT
Message-ID: <CvnL7G.H9q@armory.com>
References: <NIVEK.94Sep1114420@scythe.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.94Sep1160803@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> <CvM1x9.C4H@sm.luth.se>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 43

In article <CvM1x9.C4H@sm.luth.se>, Johan Forsberg <jf@my19.sm.luth.se> wrote:
>yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>>If the goal is to create a forum for discussing advanced topics in
>>robotics for researchers in academia/industry/government, perhaps we
>>could follow the model of sci.physics.research and sci.astro.research.
>
>>We could leave comp.robotics as it is now, for unmoderated general
>>discussions related to all aspects of robotics, while creating a new
>>moderated group, comp.robotics.research, for research-related topics.
>
>
>I agree with the above split, even though I don't think that the
>new group (c.r.research) has to be moderated.
>
>Leaving comp.robotics as it is and adding a new group for research will
>have a minimal impact on those who think that the current 
>comp.robotics is the best possible. At the same time it will
>create a forum for those of us doing academic research in robotics.
>
>Such a split will also be more clear than practice/theory. If it
>is research, then put it in .research, otherwise put
>it in the main group.
>
>I would favour the creation of a new group:
>
>comp.robotics.research  (unmoderated)
>
>/Johan Forsberg
>--
>Johan Forsberg                         EMail: jf@sm.luth.se
>Dept. of Robotics & Automation         Phone: +46 (920) 72237
>Lulea University of Technology         Fax:   +46 (920) 72082
>S-971 87 LULEA, SWEDEN
----------------------------------------
AGREED!!! By taking our time, we have come to something sensible. Not only
does it follow other net practices for appending more academic/research/
/theoretical groups onto more hands-on and originally practical groups, but
it need not disturb the original group. I would read and respond here, but
I would likely only visit c.r.research to acquire a more esoteric view of
academic and mathematical robotics theory. Sounds good.
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com     Anyone else want to assent?

