Subject: Low-end VR Newsgroup (was Re: move to a newsgroup?)

From: [email-masked] (Aaron Pulkka)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 11:33:36 PDT

If this list truly has about 300 participants, I think now is a reasonable
time to consider moving to a newsgroup.  If this list does move to a
newsgroup, I suggest that its scope be expanded to include all types of
low-end (read: cheap) VR solutions.

From reading resent submissions on this topic I get the impression that
there are others who agree with this approach.  Now comes the tough part:
What should the newsgroup be named and who will organize its creation?

I suggest that the newsgroup should not be part of the 'alt' hierarchy,
since many sites don't carry it; either the 'comp' or 'sci' hierarchy
would work.  If the discussions are only going to be
about peripherals like the power glove and the Sega glasses, then it
would make sense to tag onto the end of 'comp.periphs' (something like
'comp.periphs.virtual')If people want to also talk about rendering
3-D graphics or creating 3-D sound with a PC, then 'periphs' wouldn't
be quite as appropriate (maybe 'comp.sys.virtual' or
'sci.virtual-worlds.low-end').  Can anyone think of a more flattering
tag then 'low-end'?

I would be willing to administrate the Call For Votes if there is
some kind of consensus about what the scope and name of the newsgroup
should be.

Another question comes to mind...should the newsgroup be moderated?
The answer to that is usually "yes it should, but no one wants to do it."
I might be willing to moderate such a group as well (depending mainly
on what the scope will be).

Please e-mail me (or this list, if you prefer) any ideas or suggestions
about the scope and name of this proposed newsgroup.  Consider these
names:
	comp.periphs.glove  (previously proposed to discuss only the glove)
	comp.periphs.virtual
	comp.sys.virtual
	sci.virtual-worlds.low-end

        +--------------\
        | Aaron Pulkka  >       [email-masked]
        +--------------/
"when there is no answer,
 we are free to think." -- 1991 Portland Creative Conference

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Robichaux)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 14:54:44 CDT

Perhaps "sci.virtual-worlds.small?"

I think that the new group would work best as a discussion area for 
inexpensive VR systems; thus, it should permit discussion of peripherals,
software techniques, and interface issues (although the last should 
probably be in sci.virtual-worlds.)

I'm willing to help in the c.f.v, or to serve as moderator if necessary. 

-Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Craig S. Wilson)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 16:02:55 -0500

> Perhaps "sci.virtual-worlds.small?"

Yea.  And I can just hear the theme song running endlessly through my head:

"It's a small world, virt--u--al;
  it's a small world, virt--u--al;
	it's a small, small world.

Sorry.  I couldn't help myself.

/craig

---

From: Chris Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 16:59:27 -0600

> 	sci.virtual-worlds.low-end

I woould support the above two newsgroups.
Volume is a bit much now.
-- 
Chris Shaw               University of Alberta
[email-masked]    CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !

---

From: Jay A. Carlson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 91 21:11:44 CDT

> Volume is a bit much now.

I support sci.virtual-worlds.low-end, and suspect it should be
unmoderated.  People are less afraid to post to unmoderated groups,
and I think we'd like to encourage the shy to post their new use for
surplus laptop screens, or whatever.

(sci.virtual-worlds.actually-doing-something-now comes to mind too,
but I don't think the sci.virtual-worlds moderator would be amused.)

---

From: Chris Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1991 23:56:34 -0600

By the way, I'm definitely against comp.sys.virtual, because the
comp.sys hierarchy is for machines from a particular manufacturer, or
a manufacturer's product line. Hence c.s.mac, c.s.sgi, c.s.dec, etc.

There is no standard "virtual" system, nor is there a manufacturer 
called "virtual", so comp.sys.virtual is out.

> but I don't think the sci.virtual-worlds moderator would be amused.)

Actually, it seems to me that the only purpose for moderation of that group
is to get U of Washington's name in lights on a permanent basis.

I happen not to like the stuff in that group right now, but on the other
hand, the philosophizing does not seem inappropriate.

The fact of the matter is that almost everyone who is doing work in this
field can't be bothered to post to that group. This is due mainly to 
the high "fluff" level, but also because most labs out there are extremely
busy getting their labs up & running. Most people are starting from
scratch, building things using the first technique that comes to mind. As a
result, nobody talks to each other because everyone thinks they have "the
best answer". Face it, reporting your hot new result to sci.virtual-worlds
is worth absolutely nothing. Better to get it in a conference or a
journal, and get credit for it. When these projects finally get published,
the seriousness level on sci.virtual-worlds will increase, because people
won't be so worried about proving themselves. I hope.
-- 
Chris Shaw               University of Alberta
[email-masked]    CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !