From: black_boxer_briefs@yahoo.com 
  
 Thad wrote: 
  
 > Thanks for your continued feedback, David. 
 > 
 > 
 > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 
 > 
 > > > It is the result of lots of discussion and hard work. Please feel free 
 > > > to share your suggested alternatives with us at news.groups. 
 > > 
 > > I think popping up all the new groups is silly.  The traffic doesn't 
 > > exist to support them. 
 > 
 > The SLR and ZLR groups are both in high demand. Those two proposals were 
 > carefully coordinated not to overlap content with each other. The P&S 
 > and rangefinder groups are another story. These proposals were done by 
 > other proponents without our advanced knowledge. The NAN team asked us 
 > if we could all come to an agreement and include all the proposed new 
 > groups on a single RFD. 
 > 
 > In order to make this possible, Alexis' proposal (originally named 
 > rec.photo.equipment.ultracompact-digicam) has to be worked over to 
 > conform to the common charter areas. In her original proposal, the group 
 > would have been limited to only ultra-compact sized digital cameras, and 
 > this would have been too narrow a range to support a new group. 
 > 
 > The rangefinder proposal came to life after all the objections to 
 > keeping those cameras in the digital SLR systems group - by both digital 
 > SLR owners, and rangefinder owners. Rose contacted me with her idea for 
 > a proposal, and we put it on the table. 
 > 
 > > slr-systems might be an improvement -- if other people are happier. 
 > 
 > There was too much controversy surrounding the other name. This was a 
 > compromise - changing the name to reflect that the group would limit its 
 > scope of inclusion to digital SLR and lens systems, and dropping the 
 > rangefinders from the digital SLR systems proposal. 
 > 
 > > One question, though -- why isn't all this in rec.photo.equipment? 
 > > Since it's all equipment-based, and all? 
 > 
 > The proposed newsgroups are not only equipment newsgroups - they also 
 > cover photography with the given category of cameras. Discussion of 
 > photography will always occur in photo equipment newsgroups, so there 
 > should be no need to ban it to begin with. 
 > 
 > With regard to traffic - the vote will tell us if there is enough user 
 > interest to support any of the proposed groups, independently of one 
 > another. Please vote for any of the groups you intend to read, and 
 > abstain from any of the groups that do not interest you. Thanks again. 
 > Thanks for your continued feedback, David. 
 > 
 > 
 > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 
 > 
 > > > It is the result of lots of discussion and hard work. Please feel free 
 > > > to share your suggested alternatives with us at news.groups. 
 > > 
 > > I think popping up all the new groups is silly.  The traffic doesn't 
 > > exist to support them. 
 > 
 > The SLR and ZLR groups are both in high demand. Those two proposals were 
 > carefully coordinated not to overlap content with each other. The P&S 
 > and rangefinder groups are another story. These proposals were done by 
 > other proponents withour our knowledge. The NAN team asked us if we 
 > could all come to an agreement and include all the proposed new groups 
 > on a single RFD. 
 > 
 > In order to make this possible, Alexis' proposal (originally named 
 > rec.photo.equipment.ultracompact-digicam) has to be worked over to 
 > conform to the common charter areas. In her original proposal, the group 
 > would have been limited to only ultra-compact sized digital cameras, and 
 > this would have been too narrow a range to support a new group. 
 > 
 > The rangefinder proposal came to life after all the objections to 
 > keeping those cameras in the digital SLR systems group - by both digital 
 > SLR owners, and rangefinder owners. Rose contacted me with her idea for 
 > a proposal, and we put it on the table. 
 > 
 > > slr-systems might be an improvement -- if other people are happier. 
 > 
 > There was too much controversey surrounding the other name. This was a 
 > compromise - changing the name to reflect that the group would limit its 
 > scope of inclusion to digital SLR and lens systems, and dropping the 
 > rangefinders from the digital SLR systems proposal. 
 > 
 > > One question, though -- why isn't all this in rec.photo.equipment? 
 > > Since it's all equipment-based, and all? 
 > 
 > The proposed newsgroups are not only equipment newsgroups - they also 
 > cover photography with the given category of cameras. Discussion of 
 > photography will always occur in photo equipment newsgroups, so there 
 > should be no need to ban it to begin with. 
 > 
 > With regard to traffic - the vote will tell us if there is enough user 
 > interest to support any of the proposed groups, independently of one 
 > another. Please vote for any of the groups you intend to read, and 
 > abstain from any of the groups that do not interest you. Thanks again. 
  
 Sorry about the double post. 
  
  
 -- 
  
 Thaddeus Lipshitz 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)