P3D Re: C3D (was:Ban everything not specifically 3D?)

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 04:21:39 -0700
>From: "Dr. George A. Themelis" <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: C3D (was:Ban everything not specifically 3D?)

>It is not about changing an existing list but about creating a new one 
>to promote discussions in the digital stereocopic field.  

It's easy to say that, but what assurance is there that pressure won't be
applied to move more digital issues from P3D to C3D? Once the ghetto has been
constructed, it's so tempting to herd all eligible parties over there.

The nature of the proposed new list hasn't been solidly determined, and we've
been presented with a list of advantages that are mutually incompatible,
like a salesman promising that your "motor vehicle" will get 60 miles to
the gallon, go from 0 to 100 mph in 10 seconds, comfortably sleep a family
of six, and fit in a compact parking space - there are vehicles that will
do each of those things, but no single vehicle that does them all.

T3D and S3D have very narrow and specific charters, which took very little
time to create. The creation of the P3D charter was a long and meticulous
process, with careful consideration of its ramifications, and the care put
into the creation of the charter is a significant part of what's made P3D
such a successful carrier of a wide range of 3D topics.

To have any chance of working well, the C3D charter would *not* be a simple
one like T3D or S3D - and the direction the strawman charter is taking (to
judge from the posts of some of C3D's strongest proponents) appears to be
headed for what I would consider a tragic mistake.

The mistake lies in thinking of it as a "computer" or "digital" list - those
broad categories can't be separated out without significant damage to P3D.
In my opinion, the only way it would have a reasonable chance of success
is to keep P3D exactly as it is now (computer/digital discussion and all),
and to reserve the new list for computer/digital discussions that are so
detailed and technical that they would raise the strongest cries of protest
and be booted off P3D into oblivion (as the situation now stands). In other
words, P3D will still carry the simple computer and digital stuff, and it
won't lose any content to the new list, because the new list will only carry
what would have been squelched on P3D anyway.

The new list would therefore become another Tech list, similar to T3D, but
with emphasis in the computer and digital fields. It could be given a name
like comp-tech-3d (CT3D) or digi-tech-3d (DT3D), with the word "tech" serving
to define its role. Under these specific conditions, the charter could be
fairly simple and straighforward, almost as much so as T3D's charter (as
opposed to the nightmare if an effort were made to expand it to a larger
scope).

With this partitioning, P3D would continue to do everything it does now,
including the important role of easing 3D enthusiasts into the world of
digital 3D. DT3D would keep the digital guys happy, and allow them to expand
the scope and importance of advanced digital 3D. Peter Davis' concerns about
list fragmentation would not come to pass - topics that span 3D in general
would *always* go to P3D. I believe this description is consistent with the
partitioning Gabriel and Dan described. Readers of both lists would not 
have to worry about duplication, or where to send a particular message.

But it would have to be clear in the charter that the new list is for
the highly *technical* discussions related to computer/digital 3D. If the
list were allowed to drift to include the low-level digital stuff, I believe
that many of the potential problems that have been discussed would appear.

John R


------------------------------