Received: from relay.tek.com by karazm.math.UH.EDU with SMTP id AA28685 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Wed, 23 Oct 1991 17:52:41 -0500 Received: by relay.tek.com id ; Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:32:12 -0700 Received: from tekig7.map.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1) id AA25853; Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:32:00 PDT Received: from narrator.PEN.TEK.COM (narrator.TEK) by tekig7.map.tek.com (4.1/7.1) id AA11478; Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:32:05 PDT Received: from localhost.TEK by narrator.PEN.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1) id AA07268; Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:32:05 PDT Message-Id: <9110232232.AA07268@narrator.PEN.TEK.COM> To: glove-list@karazm.math.uh.edu Subject: Moving List to Newsgroup Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:32:04 -0700 From: aaronp@narrator.pen.tek.com Creating a new newsgroup is a good idea, but there are some hard questions that must be answered first. I am going to pose these questions along with some personal comments. 1. Why don't people just start posting to sci.virtual-worlds? The moderators (Bob Jacobson and Mark DeLoura) have indicated that they would love to have posts on the topics presented here. Although that newsgroup is moderated, it is by no means heavily filtered, all posts that are not blatent flames get through. Discussions about high and low end technical issues are encouraged as well as the more phisosphical issues that seem to dominate. 2. If a new newsgroup is created, what should it be called? The discussions have gone beyond the glove, peripherals, and even low-end solutions; the discussions here are simply technical exchanges about virtual interface technology. This is somewhat different from sci.virtual-worlds only because most of the posts are announcements or philosphical in nature -- but please refer to question #1, we could change that. Last week I received alot of mail on the naming subject, so I will try to summarize: alt.: Not enough sites get alt groups so this would require a list to mirror the newsgroup as Nik Conwell describes. Has the advantage of not requiring the lengthy newsgroup creation process. comp.periphs.glove or comp.periphs.virtual: Scope is not as broad as the discussions which take place here. As stated in the preface to this summary, the discussions here have simply gone beyond peripherals. comp.sys.virtual: comp.sys.* groups are for computer manufacturers, not broad application categories. sci.virtual-worlds.low-end or sci.virtual-worlds.homebrew: Those doing 'serious' research are working with both high and low end solutions, so it is difficult to draw an arbitrary line between what is homebrew and what is not; as the price of computer technology is always dropping, what was high-end yesterday will be low-end tommorow. Besides, even if we can make a clear distinction, should we? We have alot to learn from each-other and splitting our efforts could be counter-productive. sci.virtual-worlds.tech: Again, refer to question #1. This name covers the scope of these discussions most completely. It does not, however, inhibit high-end discussions as '.low-end' would. The recent discussions on standardization across the high/low 'boundary' would fit in nicely. 3. If a new newsgroup is created, should it be moderated? Many people feel that moderation inhibits people from posting. Others stress that moderation provides a clean way to archive and produce FAQ answer lists. Another concern is that all the virtual-worlds traffic will go to the un-moderated (un-archived?) newsgroup, leaving the other in the cold. Several people, including myself, have volunteered to moderate if the consensus leans towards this option. I will post a straw-poll next so that I can easily tally up people's feelings on the name and moderation issues; I will also be interested in hearing what people have to say about these questions and my comments. -- "when there is no answer, we are free to think." -- 1991 Portland Creative Conference -- +--------------\ | Aaron Pulkka > aaronp@narrator.PEN.TEK.COM +--------------/