Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.robotics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!mr.net!umn.edu!deci!hougen
From: hougen@deci.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen)
Subject: Re: 2nd post of comp.robotics.research RFD
Message-ID: <D4s4no.8Av@news.cis.umn.edu>
Summary: 2 votes for 2 proposals
Keywords: Separate
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deci.cs.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
References: <3iqprn$jqr@news.tamu.edu> <clint.laskowski-2702950819040001@jjwwjj.mixcom.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:51:43 GMT
Lines: 69
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu news.groups:136813 comp.robotics:18489

In article <clint.laskowski-2702950819040001@jjwwjj.mixcom.com>,
 clint.laskowski@mixcom.com (Clint Laskowski) writes:
>If I understand the proposal correctly, I would vote against it. I am in
>favor of keeping things just the way they are:

To clarify things (at the risk of beating a dead horse), 
there are really two (2) propsals being discussed 
simultaneously.  One is to create comp.robotics.research.
The other is to rename comp.robotics to comp.robotics.misc.
These proposals will be voted on separately.  The first
proposal was initiated by the four proponents of c.r.r as
listed in the RFD.  The second was added because the
moderator of news.announce.newgroups required that it be
discussed simultaneously.


>LONG LIVE THE COMP.ROBOTICS NEWSGROUP :-)

If you oppose the name change, you are free to vote no on
the second proposal and still vote in favor of the creation
of comp.robotics.research.  Whether the name change occures
or not, however, the content of comp.robotics will remain
just as it is today; comp.robotics will *not* be killed in
*any* case.


>What really is the reason for breaking things out into separate groups? Is
>your research really distracted by newbie and hobbyist posts? Is this why
>we never see research realted posts?

It is believed that this is exactly the case; that 
researchers conclude that comp.robotics is for hobbyists,
since it is dominated by hobby-type postings, and that
the few research postings that do get made wind up
drowning in the sea of hobby postings.  Researchers, as
your own example below (deleted for brevity) indicates,
therefor do not use it for research postings.


>Why don't researchers post to comp.robotics? Do you think a separate
>newsgroup will really help? If breaking out a separate newsgroup will get
>researchers to start posting some interesting messages, I guess I'd
>support it. But so far I see no proof of that... hobbyists seem to be
>doing all the interesting posts. 
>
>Prove me wrong and I'll support your proposal!

Yes, I do think that a seperate newsgroup would really 
help; that researchers will post interesting messages
to comp.robotics.research.  I really can't give a 
rigorous proof of this, but it is far from unsupported.
Last fall, during the preliminary discussion on this
issue, many netters (both in postings to the group and
in personal email) commented that they were doing
robotics research and would make use of a robotics group
specifically intended for research postings.  Further,
the strong support given for the group in the poll taken
at that time indicates that the community is there and
waiting for the correct place to call their own.


>[Obviously, just my 2-cents worth!]
>
>-- Clint

Dean Hougen
--
"Please don't let me be waiting in vain."
    - Bob Marley
