From: joe@sfbooks.com 
  
 In article <1094516952.27979@isc.org>, Thad 
  wrote: 
  
 >                      REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) 
 >                unmoderated group rec.photo.digital.slr 
  
 In case there's anyone even further behind on news.groups than I am, 
 please note that this proposal has now been superseded by a fourth 
 RFD, for four separate groups including rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. 
 Nevertheless, since several people have indicated an interest in 
 reverting to a single-group proposal, I'm going to have the temerity 
 to suggest a possible way out of the contention over technical SLR 
 cameras that don't have interchangeable lenses.  This is modelled on 
 comparable language in the soc.history.early-modern charter. 
  
 > CHARTER: rec.photo.digital.slr 
 > 
 > This newsgroup, rec.photo.digital.slr, is an open forum for the 
 > discussion of digital SLR (single lens reflex) camera systems. 
 > 
 > These systems consist of: 
 > 
 > -Digital SLR (DSLR) camera bodies with mounts for detachable lenses 
  
 Although this is obviously one of the points of contention, I'm 
 inclined to agree with those who say that the common-use meaning 
 of SLR includes lens interchangeability, and to leave the line as 
 it stands, dealing with non-interchangeable-lens systems further 
 down, on the principle that you should put the most important stuff 
 first.  My goal in this suggestion is to simultaneously "legalise" 
 discussion of fixed-lens SLRs, while also trying to redirect it. 
  
 > Additional On-Topic Discussion: 
  
 Additional On-Topic Discussions: 
  
 > Digital rangefinder camera systems are technically not SLR systems, but 
 > they are on-topic if they offer lens interchangeability. Inclusion of 
 > digital rangefinders with mounts for detachable lenses is provisional; 
 > should a separate Big-8 newsgroup for digital rangefinders ever come 
 > into existence, these camera systems will become off-topic in 
 > rec.photo.digital.slr upon passage of the new group. 
  
 [I am not expressing an opinion as to whether this exception should 
 be done, or not, so much as I'm copying it and therefore quoting it. 
 If my suggestions were adopted but the rangefinder exception were 
 dropped, you'd want to go back to the singular in the heading quoted 
 above.] 
  
 Digital SLR cameras without mounts for detachable lenses are 
 technically SLR cameras, and are therefore on-topic, but people 
 with concerns about these cameras are likely to find that they're 
 better off discussing such cameras in a group where "SLR-like" 
 cameras are discussed, whether that group is rec.photo.digital 
 or a group created later. 
  
 > What Is Considered Off-Topic: 
  
 > -Discussion of any cameras with non-detachable lenses 
  
 Delete this line. 
  
 Again, I do expect the proponents of the fourth RFD to go ahead and 
 put something like that RFD to the vote, and what I'm suggesting here 
 is arguably incompatible with the creation of rec.photo.digital.zlr, 
 which is part of that proposal.  I would like to note that this 
 apparent incompatibility does not impress me; there are apparently 
 lots more SLR-like cameras out there than the ones that are true SLRs 
 but don't have interchangeable lenses, so what you'd have is really 
 an overlap rather than duplication; this overlap would *not* be in 
 an area of active discussion, from everything I've read; and anyway, 
 despite what various news.groups regulars will tell you, overlaps are 
 not intrinsically evil anyway, as long as they're thought out.  So 
 I don't think any of the above is outright incompatible with a four- 
 group proposal.  But certainly, if the four-group approach were to be 
 dropped, I would hope the above way of dealing with the arguments over 
 what "SLR" means would be considered. 
  
 Joe Bernstein 
  
 -- 
 Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer                   joe@sfbooks.com 
  
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)