adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) (06/08/91)
Subject sez it all -- I haven't seen any posts in two days! I guess it's time for a summary: What We've Got: 1) Two bids for moderator from John Murray (murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu) and John Woolverton (woolstar@cobalt.caltech.edu). Any other volunteers should sign up by Jun 10, so that we can take a straw poll to determine who will be the moderator of the new group. Don't forget to post a resume of sorts, similar to what you see below. (Sorry for the tight deadline, but this discussion is due to terminate Jun 16, and I for one would rather not go into overtime.) For those of you who missed it, the current candidates' introductions are included at the end of this message. What We've Not Got: 1) A name for the newsgroup. At this point, we have the following suggestions (as compiled by John Woolverton): comp.graphics.research comp.graphics.interesting comp.graphics.development comp.graphics.programmer comp.graphics.mod comp.graphics.theory comp.graphics.software As I see it, there's been one heck of a discussion on the above topic, so I guess it's time to take a vote. Send your vote for newsgroup name to: groupname@barkley.berkeley.edu You may place the name you choose anywhere in the message. Voting for the groupname begins now and ends 11:59 pm, Jun 14. I will post a summary of votes around 11:59 pm, Jun 12, and a complete list of who voted which way, along with a tally up the votes, after the voting deadline (if you feel strongly against having names listed against groupname votes, send me email). There will then be 2 days during which you may choose to discuss matter further or correct my summary. 2) A charter. Obviously, this depends on the group name. I'll draw up a charter based on the group name and submit it as early as possible for general approval. C'mon, net.folks! Let's hear some more voices out there -- I can't go this alone!! 8-) Anyway, as promised, a repost of the introductions of our two moderator candidates: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John Murray (murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu): What I Do: I am a graphics and Scientific Visualization programmer and support- type person for a scientific research organization. I help scientists in a wide variety of fields produce visualization and presentation graphics animations, with a strong emphasis on the former. We have resident and visiting scientists working in theoretical, high-energy, nuclear and other areas of physics, meteorology, geophysical fluid dynamics, materials sciences, chemistry, biology, genetics, chaos theory, and more. The challenges for a graphics person are unusual and interesting here. I am also 2nd author (of three) of a scientific visualization and animation program, that also supports automatic video recording. It is currently running on our Silicon Graphics 4D-240/GTX and our pseudo- GL-compatible IBM RS6000's. The program is scheduled for beta-release near the end of this year, and will be released into the public domain Real Soon thereafter. (depending on results from the beta-release, of course) If any net.graphics.gurus happened to be there, preliminary results from in-house and limited external use of this package were discussed by the first author, Eric Pepke, at the DoE Graphics Forum in Berkeley last month. Feel free to quiz me further on general terms, but please excuse me if I avoid the specifics. So, you might or might not consider me a graphics researcher, (IMO I am..) however I am definitely a graphics professional, with a strong interest in what's developing out there in my field. Former ACM SIGGRAPH member. Egad, the prices! Besides, SCRI's located on the top floor of the FSU Science Library.. and courtesy of SCRI I am headed for my second SIGGRAPH in a row, and work for Eric who has been there yearly since '85. The Site: FSU is an ESnet T1 site. Our News admin did the same thing for other people on campus before he came here, giving him 3 years as an admin. We have two separate news sites here on campus, i.e. if our (SCRI's) news site goes down, there's another one I can use as an NNTPServer to post through from my workstation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John Woolverton (woolstar@cobalt.caltech.edu): What I do, I am a Senior Programmer with Video Bits, a computer graphics animation software company, where I design ray tracing and animation tools for Unix and personal computers. I have designed several generations of our current software, as well as adapting it for X, Motif, and the Mac windowing systems. I work with other computer graphics programmers, evolving our product, and with animation artists in Los Angeles, trying to meet their performance and production needs. My goal to learn about everything in computer graphics, and to use what I know to write the best rendering software that is practical. I'm an expert in ray-tracing, modeling, sampling and 3d math; while I'm a learner in Radiosity, CSG, and artificial reality. I graduated from the Caltech Graphics Lab, home of many "big names" like Jim Kajia, Jim Blinn, and Al Barr (my advisor). Current member of ACM SIGGRAPH. Egad, the prices! I have been religiously attending SIGGRAPH since it came to Los Angeles five years ago. The road trip to Siggraph in Atlanta was an adventure in itself... My home machine is a Silicon Graphics 4d35 Personal Iris. Ha! The site, The local sysadmin has agreed to create a specific account for submissions to this group on the system: nntp-server.caltech.edu Caltech is connected on the west coast NSF backbone, and I have access to it both by TCP and modem backup. This site and account could well exist longer than I, the original VAX BSD system was in place before I got here, and operations migrated to sparc stations seemlessly. My goal, To manage a forum for computer graphics discussion. New ideas, old ideas, what people are using, what's being worked on, what hasn't worked, ... everything. I don't consider the PC hardware and GIFFLE in comp.gr to be computer graphics discussion. (I like the term GIFFLE btw.) I hope to keep a fast turn around. Most of the time I am on the system and can respond quickly. I don't imagine wanting to edit postings, except perhapse the subject line to maintain consistancy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) (06/09/91)
Yes, I know discussions like this belong in news.groups, but it's pretty obvious that the people who are frustrated with wading through comp.graphics are also not bothering to wade through news.groups. Just trying to stimulate discussion, so we can resolve this stuff. In article <ADRIANHO.91Jun7220448@barkley.berkeley.edu> adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) writes: > > comp.graphics.research IMO this is still the best name for the group. The fact that we went through the first three weeks or so of unofficial discussion and the first week or two of official discussion without much serious opposition to this name indicates to me that the name is at least acceptable to most people. I also think it's the best name for discouraging requests for VGA-based GIF displayers. I think most of the latest name discussions have come up out of boredom more than anything else. IMO of course. > comp.graphics.interesting Ack! Personally I don't think this should have even been suggested. Not only is this associated with John Woolverton's bogus CFV, but the general consensus at the time seemed to be that it was a *terr*ible name. Obviously the most interesting stuff in graphics for us is not the most interesting graphics stuff for the guy trying to get a look at this month's Playmate. > comp.graphics.development I'm kinda neutral on this name. IMO .research would tend to suggest a higher level of discussion. After all, doesn't building your own image file displayer constitute development? Requests for image file formats is the second or third largest category of postings in comp.graphics. (requests for image file displayers and converters being the largest by a margin of 20% or so.) > comp.graphics.programmer I don't like this for the same reason I don't like .software. Not everyone doing interesting graphics is doing programming. Also see the comments under .development. Same thing applies to .programmer. > comp.graphics.mod It's not immediately clear what this group is about. I'd rather have a name that gave some idea what the purpose of the group is. > comp.graphics.theory My second favorite after .research. Still gets across the idea that this is *not* the group to go to to find a GIF <--> BIFF converter. > comp.graphics.software An obvious bash against the graphics hardware guys, as has been mentioned. >Send your vote for newsgroup name to: > > groupname@barkley.berkeley.edu > >You may place the name you choose anywhere in the message. Let's get the official creation vote going on time! The name and mod issues need to be gotten out of the way. -- *Standard Disclaimers Apply*| ---Get Out Of HELL Free!--- John R. Murray |The bearer of this card is entitled to forgive murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu |Himself of all Sins, Errors and Transgressions. Supercomputer Research Inst.| -- D. Owen Rowley
jorice@maths.tcd.ie (Jonathan Rice) (06/10/91)
Things seem to be firming up well with regard to our new central group - Adrian's call for votes on its name is timely. However, we should not treat this group in isolation. I think most of us see it as only one group out of maybe four or five new comp.graphics groups, each with a well-defined charter to handle separate areas of the computer graphics field, and discussion about these new groups has been virtually absent for a while. If we go ahead and create *just* comp.graphics.theory (or .research, or whatever we decide upon), then yes, we've gained, but we could have gained more by doing a total reorganisation. Can a netexpert tell me if we need to send out a Call For Discussion for *each* of the groups we plan to create, or can we do it under the umbrella of "comp.graphics reorganisation" and use our existing CFD? Whichever, we *urgently* need to discuss division of responsibility between these new groups if they're to be put in place about the same time as comp.graphics.theory/.research. To start the ball rolling again, here's a rough outline of groups I think would be sensible: comp.graphics.theory/.research/.???? Moderated group discussing state-of-the-art computer graphics theory. *Everyone* wants this group. Hopefully we all want the same thing. We shall see, when Adrian gets his draft charter going. comp.graphics.pixutils/.pictures/.picstuff/.???? Unmoderated group discussing anything that has to do with 2-D images (manipulators, convertors, viewers, ftp sites). Essentially the function of alt.graphics.pixutils, moved under the comp.graphics wing and with charter expanded to make it deal with *all* of the tiresome image-related topics swamping comp.graphics now. comp.graphics.applications/.software/.???? Unmoderated group discussing particular applications - e.g. "How do I do <blah> in <blah>?" comp.graphics.hardware Unmoderated group. Discussions of c.g. hardware not "cutting-edge" enough to be in comp.graphics.theory/.research. You know, general hardware stuff. comp.graphics.announce Unmoderated. Announcements of interest to c.g. people - conferences, new ftp sites, new products, etc. This group may not be necessary if people think that the individual specialty groups can handle announcements too. I think it'd be nice, though. comp.graphics.visualization As is. comp.graphics.misc Misc stuff that doesn't fit into any of the other categories easily. General stuff. Unmoderated. Are people thinking somewhat along these lines? Whether you are or not, let's *talk* about it and broaden the discussion out from just the central group. o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o | Jonathan Rice | Email: jorice@cs.tcd.ie | He was a common fly | |----------------------| Tel: 353.1.772941 x2156 (w)| With a taste for fashion | |Computer Science Dept.| 353.1.6245415 (h)| They were thrown together| | Trinity College | Fax: 353.1.772204 | In a heat of passion | | Dublin 2, | woof /\___/ | - "Human Fly", | | Ireland. | /| |\ | The Horseflies | o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o
uselton@nas.nasa.gov (Samuel P. Uselton) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.140930.23238@maths.tcd.ie> jorice@maths.tcd.ie (Jonathan Rice) writes: >Things seem to be firming up well with regard to our new central group - >Adrian's call for votes on its name is timely. However, we should not treat >this group in isolation. I think most of us see it as only one group out of >maybe four or five new comp.graphics groups, each with a well-defined >charter to handle separate areas of the computer graphics field, and discussion >about these new groups has been virtually absent for a while. If we go >ahead and create *just* comp.graphics.theory (or .research, or whatever we >decide upon), then yes, we've gained, but we could have gained more by doing >a total reorganisation. Adrian is asking for more participation in the c.g.research discussion. You're asking for MUCH more. I would rather do the small thing well, rather than making an attempt at the bigger reorganization, and having it fail for lack of effort/enthusiasm. (Which seems likely to me given the slack that has fallen into the current discussion.) >Can a netexpert tell me if we need to send out a >Call For Discussion for *each* of the groups we plan to create, or can we do >it under the umbrella of "comp.graphics reorganisation" and use our existing >CFD? I'm no net-expert, but the *current* CFD is *not* c.g.reorganization. >Whichever, we *urgently* need to discuss division of responsibility >between these new groups if they're to be put in place about the same time as >comp.graphics.theory/.research. I see no particular reason why additional groups *need* to be put into place at the same time, *especially* since I'm not sure of how many, which ones, etc are needed. Therefore no *urgency*. > >To start the ball rolling again, here's a rough outline of groups I think >would be sensible: > >comp.graphics.theory/.research/.???? > Moderated group discussing state-of-the-art computer graphics theory. > *Everyone* wants this group. Hopefully we all want the same thing. We > shall see, when Adrian gets his draft charter going. > I think discussion on the charter is worthwhile at this point. I took a swing at it. Anyone else? Oh yes, I favor the originally proposed name, c.g.research. >comp.graphics.pixutils/.pictures/.picstuff/.???? > Unmoderated group discussing anything that has to do with 2-D images > (manipulators, convertors, viewers, ftp sites). > Essentially the function of alt.graphics.pixutils, moved under the > comp.graphics wing and with charter expanded to make it deal with *all* > of the tiresome image-related topics swamping comp.graphics now. > Moving the alt group into comp.graphics.... has some merit. But I'd like a distinct discussion just to keep things clear. >comp.graphics.applications/.software/.???? > Unmoderated group discussing particular applications - e.g. "How do I > do <blah> in <blah>?" > >comp.graphics.hardware > Unmoderated group. Discussions of c.g. hardware not "cutting-edge" > enough to be in comp.graphics.theory/.research. You know, general > hardware stuff. > >comp.graphics.announce > Unmoderated. Announcements of interest to c.g. people - conferences, > new ftp sites, new products, etc. This group may not be necessary if > people think that the individual specialty groups can handle > announcements too. I think it'd be nice, though. > I would rather leave these three plus c.g.misc (below) in the current comp.graphics and see how it works before even considering additional modificatiosn. >comp.graphics.visualization > As is. > Of course. >comp.graphics.misc > Misc stuff that doesn't fit into any of the other categories easily. > General stuff. Unmoderated. > >Are people thinking somewhat along these lines? Whether you are or not, let's >*talk* about it and broaden the discussion out from just the central group. > Well, I told you what *I* think. And it includes "Let's keep the discussion focussed on *one* issue." > >o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o >| Jonathan Rice | Email: jorice@cs.tcd.ie | He was a common fly | >|----------------------| Tel: 353.1.772941 x2156 (w)| With a taste for fashion | >|Computer Science Dept.| 353.1.6245415 (h)| They were thrown together| >| Trinity College | Fax: 353.1.772204 | In a heat of passion | >| Dublin 2, | woof /\___/ | - "Human Fly", | >| Ireland. | /| |\ | The Horseflies | >o----------------------o----------------------------o--------------------------o Sam Uselton uselton@nas.nasa.gov employed by CSC working for NASA (Ames) speaking for myself
adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun10.140930.23238@maths.tcd.ie> jorice@maths.tcd.ie (Jonathan Rice) writes: >Things seem to be firming up well with regard to our new central group - >Adrian's call for votes on its name is timely. I wish -- I think I delayed too long in calling for votes, hence the current scramble. > However, we should not treat >this group in isolation. I think most of us see it as only one group out of >maybe four or five new comp.graphics groups, each with a well-defined >charter to handle separate areas of the computer graphics field, and discussion >about these new groups has been virtually absent for a while. If we go >ahead and create *just* comp.graphics.theory (or .research, or whatever we >decide upon), then yes, we've gained, but we could have gained more by doing >a total reorganisation. Can a netexpert tell me if we need to send out a >Call For Discussion for *each* of the groups we plan to create, or can we do >it under the umbrella of "comp.graphics reorganisation" and use our existing >CFD? Unless I'm very mistaken, several groups can be lumped together into one discussion and even one vote (else I'd think the current comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy would have taken AGES to create 8-). However, I believe that this general grouping must exist *from the start*, ie. from the CFD. (Modifications to individual group names and/or charters is of course permitted.) Somebody please correct me if I'm thoroughly mistaken. > Whichever, we *urgently* need to discuss division of responsibility >between these new groups if they're to be put in place about the same time as >comp.graphics.theory/.research. [ suggested groups deleted ] Several people have advanced various arguments against this, and I won't repeat them here. I'd just like to add that, IMHO, a significant fraction of the current traffic on all the graphics newsgroups could be deemed to be "system-specific" (I'm using this term very loosely), like VGA double-buffering or graphics file formats. As such, they are more appropriately dealt with somewhere in the comp.sys.* or even the existing graphics hierarchies. What's left after the removal of such traffic may not be sufficient to justify a plethora of issue-specific groups. I personally would prefer the creation of a single group which is conceptually divorced from all the existing groups, but whose charter (and name, hopefully) admits a broad base of discussion with a minimum overlap with the current groups. If, after a suitable period of time, we all feel that the base is _too_ broad, we can begin a new discussion about spawning off new groups. In this way, we can (hopefully) avoid the "horror" of comp.sys.amiga.*.
bstewart@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce Stewart) (06/13/91)
In article <ADRIANHO.91Jun12164558@barkley.berkeley.edu> adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) writes: > >I personally would prefer the creation of a single group which is >conceptually divorced from all the existing groups, but whose charter >(and name, hopefully) admits a broad base of discussion with a minimum >overlap with the current groups. If, after a suitable period of time, I am also unconvinced of the need for adding more than one group at the present time; in fact, I am not fully convinced of the need for adding any.