From: black_boxer_briefs@yahoo.com 
  
 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. 
  
 -- 
  
 Thaddeus Lipshitz 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)