Subject:
|
Re: list/group merge (was RE: Newbie Question.. FAQ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:01:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2972 times
|
| |
|
|
Kekoa Proudfoot writes:
> My only concern is that there is not enough traffic to warrant a split.
>
> Reverse engineering will die down after a few more months - the firmware is
> 95% finished as far as I'm concerned, with only the ROM and new firmware
> really remaining - when these are done, traffic on these topics will die
> down substantially. Posts relating to custom Lego robotics have always
> seemed to be in a sideband - interesting, but never a major talking point.
> I'm sure that purists can withstand the wincing when hearing about the
> occasional slicing and dicing of a Lego part. I even think occasional
> threads discussing using another controller (Handy Board or Stamp, say)
> with Lego bricks are fine, since I can't imagine them ever taking over the
> focus of the list/newsgroup. (If they do, however, that might warrant a
> split.)
>
> At least, this is my take from the lego-robotics side of things.
>
> From the lugnet.robotics side of things, the charter specifically refers to
> "building" as being the focus, but in a very general sense.
I think the word "build" on the front-end of the charter is a holdover from
when the group was once called build.robotics before the renaming of the
hierarchies. You're right, it's not really restricted to building. And on
the http://www.lugnet.com/news/groups/ page, it's listed under "Building &
Creating." I just updated the description to reflect this more accurately.
The lugnet.robotics tree (currently only 1 group) was always really intended
(long-term) to encompass any robotics thing.
> On the other
> hand, the lego-robotics side of things seems to be focused on reverse
> engineering and other hacking, although I'm under the impression that
> discussions about building are welcome. There might be some amount of
> conflict there - I can see many builder-types being completely uninterested
> in internal details. So if any split is warranted, I think it would be
> between building and reverse engineering / internals, with lego-robotics
> attached (at LUGNET) to the reverse engineering / internals side of the
> split. (Personally, I'm not really for a split, but I could go either
> way.)
>
> Comments?
I'm not in favor of a split either -- unless traffic doubles or triples or
people in differing camps really get annoyed at the content of the other
camps -- but it's easy enough to handle any kind of split at this end if it
should become necessary.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: list/group merge (was RE: Newbie Question.. FAQ?
|
| (...) My only concern is that there is not enough traffic to warrant a split. Reverse engineering will die down after a few more months - the firmware is 95% finished as far as I'm concerned, with only the ROM and new firmware really remaining - (...) (26 years ago, 5-Nov-98, to lugnet.robotics)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
