Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!myria!hougen
From: hougen@myria.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Subject: Re: If you split it, they will come?
Message-ID: <Cw9C3F.I33@news.cis.umn.edu>
Summary: codes?
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: myria.cs.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
References: <clint.laskowski-120994203424@jjwwjj.mixcom.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 04:41:11 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <clint.laskowski-120994203424@jjwwjj.mixcom.com> clint.laskowski@mixcom.com (Clint Laskowski) writes:
>I still am not convinced of the value of splitting comp.robotics. However,
[stuff deleted]
>Just a thought... would it make sense to keep comp.robotics whole, but
>proceed our messages with a code (i.e., RES for research, HOME for
>homebrew, IND for industrial)? This way, the reader could easily see the
>poster's intended audience. I realize this might be a pain, and new-comers
>would be confused.
>
I've subscribed to a couple of newsgroups that have tried this over the
years and in my experience the result has been less than satisfactory.
Generally the way it has worked is this (this is my impression only, I
have not actually kept any statistics):
  When it is first pushed, most (say 70%) of the posters honor the codes,
  but as time goes by less and less people do (as people get lazy/new
  people join the group/etc.) until the system has all but collapsed,
  then there is a new push to use the codes, the number of honorees
  jumps back up (maybe to 65% or so) and so on.  The time average of 
  people using the system has been significantly less than 50%.

  Also, the number of "administrative" posts is rather annoying, as
  newbies ask about the codes, reminders to use the codes are posted,
  discussion keeps coming back to splitting as the codes don't work all
  that well, splitting discussions inevitably contain several posts
  discussing the merits of codes versus splitting. etc.

In all, I think codes are a reasonable fall-back position if no consensus
can be built for a split, but they are not a substitute for a good split.

My impression of the split discussion is that most of the people who
were initially opposed to the split would be satisfied if comp.robotics
is retained when the new group(s) are branched off from it.  If this is
indeed the case, then I would argue that we should proceed with a split
and only go to codes as a last resort if the splitting fails.
  
>Clint

Dean Hougen
--
"Its happened before and it will happen again."  - Talking Heads
