kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (12/08/89)
This is a formal call for votes on the formation of a new newsgroup
to be called rec.video.software.
The name was generally agreed upon during the discussion phase, with
only one or two objections. It was pointed out that "The
largest video industry group in the U.S. is called the Video Software
Dealers Association."
NOTE THAT THIS GROUP IS *NOT* A SIMPLE SPLIT OF REC.VIDEO. As has
been pointed out numerous times, rec.video does not have a large enough
volume to warrant splitting for that reason. MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC THAT
BELONGS IN THE NEW GROUP ACTUALLY COMES FROM REC.ARTS.MOVIES. It is
just that, in the past, the people in rec.arts.movies never have had
much reason to read rec.video, and vice versa, because most of the
traffic in rec.video is hardware related, and because most of the
discussion is rec.arts.movies is about movie content and concerns the
latest box-office releases, not video releases. Also, no one
can argue that the traffic in rec.arts.movies does not warrant a split.
The new group will relieve rec.arts.movies of some of the extra traffic
and allow readers of both rec.arts.movies and rec.video to have a common
forum for the discussion of video software releases and issues.
This group will be unmoderated.
Some of the primary uses of the group might include:
* Announcements and discussion of upcoming releases on video
including movies, television shows, etc.
* Queries about the availability of particular titles in particular
video formats
* Reviews of new releases (in terms of video and sound quality
and other factors relevant to the video transfer and not the
program content)
* Discussion concerning the distribution of video software: pricing,
rental versus purchase, copy protection, etc.
* General discussion about the relative merits of particular formats,
related only to their suitability for the presentation of pre-recorded
video software.
Note that this group would in no way take the place of either rec.arts.movies
or rec.video. Rec.arts.movies would still be used for discussions of the
content of movies and rec.video would still be used for the discussion of
video hardware and non-commercial software. There needs to be a group,
however, where people knowledgeable about movies and people knowledgable
about video can get together and discuss what's good and bad about the
video software market. The idea of a separate software group has
proven successful with rec.music.cd complementing rec.audio and rec.music.*,
and I belive the time has come to do the same with video by creating
rec.video.software.
You may vote YES or NO by sending mail to kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
(Internet) or ...!rutgers!umn-cs!kanefsky (UUCP) or kanefsky@umn-cs.bitnet
(BITnet). It is helpful, but not necessary if you specify your vote
in the subject line. POSTED VOTES DO NOT COUNT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
You may change your vote by clearly indicating both your new vote and
the fact that you are changing your vote in the subject line or the
body of the message.
The voting will continue through January 11th, 1989. Any Votes RECEIVED after
this date will not be counted. I will post a mass acknowledgement of votes at
that time, along with the results. I will also post one or two additional
calls for votes before that time, in case anyone misses this one.
As the saying goes: vote early, vote often.
YES votes make great Christmas gifts! :-) :-) :-)
--
Steve Kanefsky
kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edublm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (12/10/89)
In article <17488@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: |The voting will continue through January 11th, 1989. Any Votes RECEIVED after |this date will not be counted. So that means the vote is already over and it failed (not receiving 100 more yes than no votes - not receiving any votes at all, in fact), right? -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (12/10/89)
In article <340@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >In article <17488@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >|The voting will continue through January 11th, 1989. Any Votes RECEIVED after >|this date will not be counted. > >So that means the vote is already over and it failed (not receiving 100 more >yes than no votes - not receiving any votes at all, in fact), right? Oops! I always though I was the sort of person to correct mistakes like that, not make them :-). I forgot to mention that the vote will end on Jan 11, 1989 kc, that's Kanefsky's calendar, which just happens to begin exactly one year after the a.d. calendar that you are probably going by. Thus, by your calendar, the vote will end on January 11, 1990. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu