| |
In lugnet.admin.general, dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com (Dave Baum) writes:
> [...]
>
> > A second iteration then -- thinking long-term is the following
> > conceivable...?
> >
> > lugnet.robotics Generic LEGO robotics
> > lugnet.robotics.events Miscellaneous robotics events
> > lugnet.robotics.events.robot-arena Robot Arena focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx High-level RCX discussions
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw General RCX firmware
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw.h8hforth h8hforth focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw.legos legOS focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.hw General RCX hardware
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw General RCX host software
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.botcode BotCode focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.brickcmd BrickCommand focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.gbp Gordon's Brick Programmer focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.mindctl Mind Control focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.nqc NQC focus group
> > lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.rcxcc RCX Command Center focus group
>
> One issue would be the potential merging of nqc/rcxcc since rcxcc is
> really a front end to nqc and shares the same language/constraints/etc.
> This is really a matter of philosophy - separate groups means that rcxcc
> users will probably subscribe to both groups, and nqc only subscribers may
> potentially miss an interesting topic in rcxcc. On the other hand,
> merging the groups would mean nqc users would see some rcxcc specific
> stuff that they don't care about. Its really up to you on how fine a
> "resolution" you make these things.
Well, I want the resolution that's most beneficial to the individual
projects and most enjoyable for participants. Fine resolution is good as
long as it lives up to the promise of providing for more focused discussions
but bad if it is so fine that people feel alone.
On the one hand, I'd probably lean toward two groups .rcx.sw.nqc &
.rcx.sw.rcxcc if the two have different enough user bases and it didn't
sound like there'd be constant crossposting. (Do you think there would be?)
In terms of subscribing, if the people interested seriously in NQC but only
casually in RCXCC could subscribe to the RCXCC group via e-mail and receive
it in digest form, would that be useful?
On the other hand, since RCXCC is a front-end to NQC, then it would probably
just make sense to have a single group for focused discussions of both NQC &
RCXCC discussions. Would it make perfect sense to lump them together into
one group and call it lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.nqc? (Certainly does to me, if
RCXCC exists only to serve NQC.)
My gut tells me that keeping them together in one group is probably best,
especially since you felt it was worth raising the issue.
--
Back to the list then, here are the 3 lugnet.robotics.* groups which exist
today:
lugnet.robotics Generic LEGO robotics
lugnet.robotics.events Miscellaneous robotics events
lugnet.robotics.events.robot-arena Robot Arena focus group
We're in agreement on a working ng name for the NQC focus group:
lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.nqc NQC focus group
And legOS would pretty clearly go either in its own group:
lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw.legos legOS focus group
or in a general RCX firmware group:
lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw General RCX firmware
[I would like to see legOS in its own group due to (a) its popularity, (b)
because its creator said he could really use a dedicated group to help him
focus on it, and (c) h8hforth may need benefit from its own group someday.]
How useful today would a focused discussion group be for RCX hardware?
lugnet.robotics.rcx.hw General RCX hardware
There seems to be interest in hardware hacking:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:1949
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:2502
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:2188
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:1862
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:2808
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.robotics:2111
but I can't tell whether the interest level is (a) high and people feel
intimidated to go into gory hw details or is (b) low. Still, if there are
only a handful of people but they would get something out of a focused hw
group, it's worth doing.
How useful today would a group be for general RCX-related software (one
level up the tree from the NQC focus group)?
lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw General RCX host software
(Examples here would be more focused discussions on things like BotCode,
BrickCommand, Mind Control, Gordon's Brick Programmer, the LEGO RIS program
editor.)
Franz-Michael Mellbin cautioned against separating programming and
construction issues, I.e. against the creation of a general-purpose
lugnet.robotics.rcx High-level RCX discussions
in the near-term as long as RCX is at the core of LEGO robotics.
--
Here is what I propose then for the very near-term -- to be wrapped up and
set into motion in the next day or two... [E = exists, P = proposed]
lugnet.robotics Generic LEGO robotics E
lugnet.robotics.events Miscellaneous robotics events E
lugnet.robotics.events.robot-arena Robot Arena focus group E
lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw.legos legOS focus group P
lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw.nqc NQC focus group P
and I could use a lot more feedback* on these three:
lugnet.robotics.rcx.hw General RCX hardware P
lugnet.robotics.rcx.sw General RCX host software P
lugnet.robotics.rcx.fw General RCX firmware P
--Todd
* Feedback not so much on how useful they would/could be, but rather on how
disruptive they would be (if at all) to the current climate of this
list/group, and whether negative altercations would arise.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | RE: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) As the creator? of HFORTH, I would LOVE to have a gruop focused on it. As it stands I am up to my eyeballs in paying consulting work and my family, and barely have enough time to keep development going. Markus has done a great job on LegOS and (...) (28 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Following is some rationale on the namings of the 2 new groups created tonight: One thing I missed earlier which is clearer now with all the Droid-dev-kit discussions going on: .sw is potentially ambiguous... To a new or casual user, does it (...) (28 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Exactly. (...) Yes, that's good. (...) One issue would be the potential merging of nqc/rcxcc since rcxcc is really a front end to nqc and shares the same language/constraints/etc. This is really a matter of philosophy - separate groups means (...) (28 years ago, 7-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
