"Bruce Murphy"  wrote 
  
 > Matt Austern  writes: 
  
 >> Thad  writes: 
  
 >> > Thanks for your continued feedback, David. 
  
 >> > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 
 >> > > I think popping up all the new groups is silly.  The traffic 
 >> > > doesn't exist to support them. 
  
 >> > > 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. 
  
 >> I don't think the new name is less controversial.  I think you've 
 >> gone from a name that a handful of people were unhappy about to one 
 >> that lots more people are unhappy about. 
  
 > Of course, if they'd just fixed their ridiculous definition, they 
 > could have kept the /old/ name, and then quite a few less people would 
 > have been unhappy. 
  
 > I'd have even considered not being unhappy since they, under duress, 
 > finally stomped on all the crossposting stupidity. 
  
 It was the switcheroo on the name that got me.  They said, don't worry, we 
 fix it a way everyone will be happy with, just wait till the 4th RFD comes 
 out.   Well I don't think so.  IMO, it's the wrong way to go. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)