P3D Re: list fragmentation

[roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John W Roberts)]

>Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:13:27 -0700
>From: Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: P3D Re: list fragmentation

>>From: Bob Wier writes:
>>The general concensus seems to be to maintain the list as a single entity
>>(or at least not to split off any further lists). However, there also does
>>clearly need to exist a forum separate from the main list for heavily
>>technical
>>computer issues as they deal with tru3d  - what I'm being inclined towards
>>at the moment is the creation of a D3D but with a limited charter that
>>disussions there will be oriented towards VERY specific computer related
>>questions (such as partioning hds, what filters to use in Photoshop, etc),
>>whereas *general* computer related 3d topics would remain on p3d.

>*****  That's a different consensus than I noticed. 

It depends on whether you count consensus by number of people commenting, 
or consensus by number of *posts*. :-)

>Some have stated things one way and others in the other way. 

A lot of people have said that they don't want a change to P3D along these 
lines, and a fair number have said they would like a chance for more discussion
of digital 3D topics. The plan Bob described would address both of these
desires, without getting a lot of people upset.

>Having a D3D list that ONLY discusses hard drives and
>PhotoShop would be decidedly out of my interest range. 

That's only relevant if you plan to *cancel* your subscription to P3D.
If you maintain your subscription to both lists, what you will see is
a full spectrum of digital 3D topics, both the general and the technical.

>...great length about camera retainer rings, adjuster knobs, film types, 
>repair routines, etc.
>I am in no way saying such topics are not useful, I'm pointing out that they
>are very boring unless one happens to own that particular camera and have
>that particular problem with it. 

You've complained about a supposed intolerance for technical digital 3D stuff.
But these words almost make it sound like you're asking the moderators to
indulge your fancy for a *self-sufficient* but *camera-detail-free* list.  :-)

>Perhaps those of us with digital interests should actually start conversing
>about our interests more heavily and see what happens then? 

Yes! good!

>Or maybe we should lower our tolerance threshold for boring non-3D camera 
>related technical questions and start complaining like the camera folk do 
>to our discussions? 

NO! BAD!

>The fact is that currently, though tolerated, digital subjects even though
>they relate to 3D are mostly unwelcome on P3D by a significant number of
>non-digitally aware persons with a very low tolerance threshold. Out of
>respect for their interests...

Why should we have any respect for the interests of an intolerant minority,
in the context of a friendly 3D discussion group?

>>It's not clear how this would be enforced though (outside of having a
>>watchful d3d moderator who could direct stuff *back* to p3d if it generalizes 

>****  If a discussion in one group gets a certain level of attention but
>happens to wander into generalized 3D areas, why does some narrow definition
>have to shoo the conversation to the *other* 3D list? Such tight rules would
>kill the conversation instead of allowing it to continue. 

No it wouldn't, if most of the people on the digital technical list also 
subscribe to P3D. The topic would just switch lists and contininue. If you 
really, seriously want to encourage a digital list with a large percentage
of subscribers who *don't* subscribe to P3D, that leads to several possible
scenarios, depending on the charter of the new list:
 - A competing or redundant list with discussion of 3D fundamentals that are
   also on P3D, requiring people who do subscribe to both lists to read the
   same fundamental stuff twice as often.
 - A large group of digital 3D people who are good with computers, but
   who don't know the fundamentals of 3D.
I think to have any sort of responsibility for the well-being of the field of
3D, you would strongly encourage subscribers on a digital 3D list to *also*
subscribe to P3D, in which case a switch of a topic from one list to another
would *not* kill the conversation.

>The only other solution is to forbid complaints about digital topics on P3D
>and expect all the traffic to pass through that one list. That hardly seems
>practical and it does involve the specific and possibly difficult change of
>forbidding complaints. ;-)

How about polite exhortation for tolerance and cooperation? :-)

John R


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2650
***************************