Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!sandshark.cs.indiana.edu!jla
From: jla@cs.indiana.edu (jason almeter)
Subject: Re: Splitting comp.robotics
In-Reply-To: cleary@everest.ccs.neu.edu's message of 12 Sep 94 15:17:05
Message-ID: <JLA.94Sep14102944@sandshark.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University Computer Science
References: <34rl8p$pk7@cabinboy.studio.disney.com> <1994Sep11.074815.18602@news.uta.edu>
	<CLEARY.94Sep12151705@everest.ccs.neu.edu>
Date: 14 Sep 1994 15:29:44 GMT
Lines: 42

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Cleary <cleary@everest.ccs.neu.edu> writes:

[snip]
    Michael> dropping c.r from the groups I follow.  Generally profs
    Michael> and other researchers feel like they have even less time
    Michael> than grad students do.  That supports the claim made
    Michael> earlier that the reason the research-type discussions
    Michael> don't appear here is because there's too much
    Michael> c.r.homebrew-type discussion.

Many people have made this argument now (and I agree).

[snip]
    Michael> The other topic I'm interested in (sometimes) is the
    Michael> repair and use of commercial bases (when ours fail).  I
    Michael> guess that would fit in the c.r.industrial category, but
    Michael> I'm not sure.  What was the intent for 'industrial' of
    Michael> the person who suggested it?

When I suggested c.r.industrial, it was in response to another post
(which I have forgotten the point of).  The distinction between
c.r.research and c.r.industrial becomes a bit blurred because
researchers often use industrial equipment.  I would suggest that
c.r.research cover novel applications of industrial equipment.  Then,
questions like "does anyone have a good inverse kinematic model for a
Puma ###?"  would go to c.r.industrial since, presumably, industrial
users of a Puma arm would routinely need (and have) that kind of
information.

I also think that c.r.research could be unmoderated using the example
of bionet.neurosci.  On that group, irrelevant posts are just ignored
and layman's questions are answered in full detail, usually quieting
the person until they have learned enough to contribute to the
discussion.  Please don't misinterpret this.  It is not an attempt to
belittle anyone, it is just a method of 'passive moderation', if you
will.  It allows the group to remain focused, and the occasional
newbie is gently pointed in the right direction.  I think this
strategy will work for c.r.research because c.r has historically been
a group of very nice people.  Has anyone seen a full blown flame war
on c.r?

-jason
