rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun9.064801.11064@zerkalo.harvard.edu> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: > I wasn't around at the formation of this group, so I wonder if >there was a specific problem being addressed with its creation. The problem we were addressing was that r.a.m was (and is) completely unusable as a forum for serious discussion of movies. Try it; you'll see. Now, as it happens, I was planning to conduct the vote myself (since I originated the proposal), but I was unable to do so because of a job change. Had I conducted the vote, and had the results been the same, I would have declared the vote to have failed. It did, just, meet the letter of the law, but by such a slim margin and with such small numbers, that it seemed clear there wasn't really enough interest to justify the existence of the group. But, given that the group was created, I was hoping to see traffic that was, if limited, at least regular. After all, there are quite a few serious cinema journals out there (Camera Obscura, Wide Angle, Velvet Light Trap, Persistence of Vision, Screen, Film Quarterly, Millenium Film Journal, etc). The readership may be small, but it exists; and the contributors to those journals continue to publish interesting articles with regularity. Why couldn't we do the same on Usenet? But r.a.c is clearly dead in the water. Why? I can think of three reasons: 1. The population of Usenet simply lacks interest in film studies. In this case, we should dissolve the group. 2. The fact that the group is moderated has deterred potential contributors. I think we need to focus the discussion around this issue. My own feeling is that a moderated r.a.c has failed (through no fault of the moderator's) and that we should now experiment with an unmoderated r.a.c. If that too fails, we're back at (1). 3. People who missed the original discussion are unaware of the existence of r.a.c or are unsure what the difference is supposed to be between r.a.c and r.a.m. To address this, someone (moderator?) should post regular announcements to r.a.m -- let those readers know that, and why, we're here. To address (2) and (3) at the same time, I think we should begin a discussion, cross-posted to r.a.m, about the possibility of converting r.a.c to an unmoderated group. Of course, we can discuss other possible amendments to the charter at the same time; but I think we should focus for now on the moderation (?) issue.
jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) (06/11/91)
Even after reading this post, I'm not quite sure what the point of r.a.c is,
and how it differs from r.a.m. Perhaps if someone (the moderator, perhaps)
would post a few examples of "here are the kinds of things in r.a.m that
DON'T belong here." As it is, I'm not sure what kinds of things you
don't want.
Jim Mann jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Stratus Computer
Not since Cromwell's troops, their puritan sensibilities offended by beauty,
went around smashing decorative art in churches has there been an act
of folly comparable to the abandonment and destruction of Forbes Field,
the Pirates' home for generations.
-- George F. Will, from Men at Work: The Craft of Baseballdavid@cis.ohio-state.edu (06/12/91)
I think a big reason for the lack of traffic is that there exists two BITNET mailing lists that pretty much cover what appears to be what rec.arts.cinema was trying to do. The two mailing lists are : SCREEN-L & FILM-L. David
PZ2@psuvm.psu.edu (David L. Phillips) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun12.073029.14628@zerkalo.harvard.edu>, uncle!david@cis.ohio-state.edu says: > >I think a big reason for the lack of traffic is that there exists two >BITNET mailing lists that pretty much cover what appears to be what >rec.arts.cinema was trying to do. The two mailing lists are : >SCREEN-L & FILM-L. > There is also CINEMA-L. (Can you provide Internet addresses for the sites of the two you mentioned, please?) [Moderator's note: Would it be worthwhile and/or advisable to link up rec.arts.cinema with one or more of these mailing lists? Do messages sent to the mailing list(s) tend to run along the lines of messages posted to rec.arts.movies (i.e. lots of trivia, endless repetitions of frequently asked questions, etc etc)? Or are the messages moderated by someone? Would someone familiar with these mailing lists care to comment on what they're like? -- MKT]
PZ2@psuvm.psu.edu (David L. Phillips) (06/13/91)
>> The two mailing lists are : SCREEN-L & FILM-L. >> >There is also CINEMA-L. (Can you provide Internet addresses for the sites of >the two you mentioned, please?) > >[Moderator's note: Would it be worthwhile and/or advisable to link up >rec.arts.cinema with one or more of these mailing lists? Do messages >sent to the mailing list(s) tend to run along the lines of messages >posted to rec.arts.movies (i.e. lots of trivia, endless repetitions of >frequently asked questions, etc etc)? Or are the messages moderated >by someone? Would someone familiar with these mailing lists care to >comment on what they're like? -- MKT] I'm familiar only with bit.listerv.cinema-l. It is not moderated. Messages tend to be a little more serious than rec.arts.movies but don't get into (usually) social issues related to cinema, production values and techniques, etc. If that is your objective, then you should plow ahead and hope that the serious cinema buffs/professionals will find your forum.
mroosen@prl.philips.nl (Monique Roosen) (06/15/91)
In <1991Jun12.073029.14628@zerkalo.harvard.edu> uncle!david@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >I think a big reason for the lack of traffic is that there exists two >BITNET mailing lists that pretty much cover what appears to be what >rec.arts.cinema was trying to do. The two mailing lists are : >SCREEN-L & FILM-L. >David Unfortunately I as many others (maybe) have no access to these mailing lists, so please try and crosspost anything to this newsgroup !! Monique -- +----- -----+ | Monique Roosen "It's not that I'm afraid to die. | | Internet: mroosen@prl.philips.nl I just don't want to be there when | +----- it happens" -- Woody Allen. -----+
sandyg@sail.labs.tek.com (Sandy Grossmann) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun12.232412.15264@zerkalo.harvard.edu> David L. Phillips <PZ2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: >>I think a big reason for the lack of traffic is that there exists two >>BITNET mailing lists that pretty much cover what appears to be what >>rec.arts.cinema was trying to do. The two mailing lists are : >>SCREEN-L & FILM-L. >> >There is also CINEMA-L. (Can you provide Internet addresses for the sites of >the two you mentioned, please?) > The mailing lists have nothing to do with it for me. I'm not cross- subscribed. I didn't even know there were mailing lists... I think we need to examine the reasons people read this newsgroup before we immediately leap to the conclusion that there's a problem here. Is our concern that people aren't posting enough articles or that people aren't reading the group? Do we really have to meet some sort of monthly minimum?????!!! It could be that the lack of traffic is simply conservative behavior on the part of the readers. It doesn't take much insight to realize that this newsgroup is a forum for thoughtful exchange of fully developed ideas. It takes time to express a fully developed idea! Perhaps people are busy and can't take the time to post thoughtful discussion. That DOESN'T mean people don't read the postings or appreciate the newsgroup. I come to this newsgroup when I have time to consider (thoughtfully) the articles. I'm glad there's not a backlog of hundreds of submissions. I see no reason to change anything about the newsgroup. Certainly no reason to generate articles just for the sake of number of postings. Is there some problem I don't know about? Sandy G. sandyg@sail.labs.tek.com -------------- Sandra J. Grossmann User Interface Research Group, Computer Research Lab Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc. P.O. Box 500, M/S 50-320, Beaverton, OR 97077