RFD: comp.compression.random
Metatron
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group comp.compression.random
This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
unmoderated newsgroup comp.compression.random.
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
comp.compression.random Random data compression algorithms and
derivates.
RATIONALE:
In the past and actuality comp.compression has become extremly
inflated
due to an increasing amount of discussion related to random data
compression and or questions regarding patents about those.
The term "random data compression" refers to quite some group of
connected
abilities a compressor may develop. I'm trying to clarify the term for
people
participating in the discussion while not being involved in or being
connected to data compression:
* able to compress (means make smaller) any string
* thus able to compress recursively (may make smaller it's own output)
* thus also able to compress "highly dense" data which isn't
compressible
otherwise (like DNA) to extreme small sizes (human genome on a
floppy,
all linux distributions of all times on a single CD, ...)
Basically the entire topic revolves around doing wonderfull things
with
some digital data, so it turns out much much smaller. The common
approach to
reach that is mostly similar to developing mechanical perpetuum-mobile
machines. I don't want to stress any thoughts about the liability or
usability or correctness of the proposed claims and algorithms. There
seem
a lot people thinking about it and I think ("right" or "wrong") they
deserve
their space to discuss their ideas, as the other compression-
enthusiasts
deserve their space to discuss undisturbed.
Absolute numbers about the percentage of random compression related
posts are difficult to produce. Just looking at the last month we have
a coverage
of 75% related posts of all posts (~250 vs. ~60), which most probably
is not
representative over the entire year. But still I expect 25% of the
group's
content to turn out to be related to random data compression.
The problem is visible for allready a very long time, even mentioned
in the
fiveteen years old comp.compression FAQ: "[this topic can] generate a
lot of
activity on comp.compression, which can last for several months."
Personally being in my tenth year of reading comp.compression feel
extremely distracted not only by the "abuse" of the general
comp.compression
group for a very specific and (without being disrespectfull) otherwise
irrelevant topic to the majority of general comp.compression inquiries
and
discussions. Moreover it affects the common acceptance and credibility
of
comp.compression as a whole, the topics and discussions exchanged and
the
people participating in it. It especially leads to automatic
hostility,
protection and pre-justification mechanism of frequent poster in the
direction of new posters which just turn out to be friendly but miss-
understood basic concepts. In that sense we should try to seek to
regain
tolerance and equilibrium for all participants, and that means IMHO
adding comp.compression.random.
The suffix .random is designed to perfectly capture the attention of
individuals in that specific area of research and the to be estimated
amount of posts-absorbtion into the new group will hopefully free
relevant discussion space in the original group. It also gives any
topic
developed in comp.compression to side-step (Follow-Up) into
comp.compression.random when it becomes off-topic. Currently
everybody just has to bear it impassively.
In accordance with the guidelines for newgroup creation, discussion
about the creation of this newsgroup will take place in
"news.groups.proposals".
I urge you to support this proposal which has the potential to
significantly assist data compression readers and those simply being
curious about compression around the world.
CHARTER:
comp.compression.random is an unmoderated group for the discussion
of random data compression algorithms. The term random data
compression referrs to all kind of compression algorithms which
ought to compress either random data, or are able to compress any
data (at times recursively), or related data compression algorithms.
The group accepts discussions about patent protection for the
mentioned
topic as well.
PROCEDURE:
For more information on the newsgroup creation process, please see:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?idpolicies:creation
Those who wish to influence the development of this RFD and its final
resolution should subscribe to news.groups.proposals and participate
in the
relevant threads in that newsgroup. This is both a courtesy to groups
in which discussion of creating a new group is off-topic as well as
the
best method of making sure that one's comments or criticisms are
heard.
All discussion of active proposals should be posted to
news.groups.proposals
To this end, the followup header of this RFD has been set to
news.groups.proposals.
If desired by the readership of closely affected groups, the
discussion
may be crossposted to those groups, but care must be taken to ensure
that all discussion appears in news.groups.proposals as well.
We urge those who would like to read or post in the proposed newsgroup
to make a comment to that effect in this thread; we ask proponents to
keep a list of such positive posts with the relevant message ID (e.g.,
Barney Fife, <4JGdnb60fsMzHA7Z...@sysmatrix.net>).
Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
DISTRIBUTION:
This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups.proposals
comp.compression
PROPONENT:
Niels Fr�hling <spam...@adsignum.com>
CHANGE HISTORY:
2009-06-09 1st RFD
Paul
"Metatron" <spam...@adsignum.com> wrote in message
news:28fe085e-5b06-4e66...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=licies:creation
> Niels Fr�hling <spam...@adsignum.com>
>
>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
>
> 2009-06-09 1st RFD
>
Great idea! Hopefully it becomes a reality.
Paul
Paul
"Metatron" <spam...@adsignum.com> wrote in message
news:28fe085e-5b06-4e66...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=licies:creation
> Niels Fr�hling <spam...@adsignum.com>
>
>
> CHANGE HISTORY:
>
> 2009-06-09 1st RFD
>
Great idea, I'm all in favor. This is probably long overdue.
Paul
Metatron
> "Metatron" <spamt...@adsignum.com> wrote in message
> > Such lists of positive feedback for the proposal may constitute good
> > evidence that the group will be well-used if it is created.
>
> > DISTRIBUTION:
>
> > This document has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> > news.announce.newgroups
> > news.groups.proposals
> > comp.compression
>
> > PROPONENT:
>
>
> > CHANGE HISTORY:
>
> > 2009-06-09 1st RFD
>
> Great idea, I'm all in favor. This is probably long overdue.
>
> Paul
Please join us in news.groups.proposals! If you can't for some reason
access that group I'm happy to redirect the messages for you, but
obviously your direct participation would help the cause tremendously
more.
You may easily access the group via google-groups (I do). It's
moderated, so just be patient until your answers show up.
Ciao
Niels
Metatron
> >In the past and actuality comp.compression has become extremly
> >inflated
> >due to an increasing amount of discussion related to random data
> >compression and or questions regarding patents about those.
>
> lines to avoid ugly wrap. �Not a big deal; maybe it's my
> setup that is doing the ugly wrapping.
Yes, I don't know I expected 80, but it seemed actualy 70.
> I don't have a strong view on the merits of the proposal.
> I'm not going to get involved in a technical discussion
> about the possibilities of compressing random data.
Me neither. But I see the need that those talks will be seperated
from the regular talks, I do describe in the proposal why. This is a
social inquiry, not one about the technical differenciation and
credibility of the subject (random compression) itself.
> The biggest problem with the proposal is the question of
> whether there is more than one person interested in using
> the group.
As I wrote since fiveteen years there are enough people interested
(for example in trying to defeat the very idea of random compression
algorithms) that the group is fill with (like last month) 75% noise
about it.
> My first impression is that you may be the
> only person who wants the new group. �A newsgroup with
> no news is no fun. �You need to beat the bushes to see
> if you can find like-minded people to post in this
> thread who would both read and post to the group.
Well do you offer me the deal to exchange comp.compression.research
by comp.compression.random? Just kiddin.
You can be well assured that it is even a (very real) possibility
that .random has more posts at the end of the year than .compression.
That is not about that there are so much people inventing and
discussion their random compression algorithms, it's about the very
persistant crowd of people that try to make those understand. You
know, there (under this topic) are two sides than can endlessly talk
about that topic without giving way, and the threads bloat like a
atomic mushrooms. It is really really difficult to maintain a regular
interest for the general group if all you see is completly off-topic!
I can't make statistics about people going away from comp.compression
because of that ...
So the thing is I care about comp.compression, I like to talk about
algorithms there and help people regarding their own inventions or
whatever, using zlib. This space should be appropriate for that kind
of talk, that's why the group exists. And it's simply necessary to be
able to move this discussion into it's own space. I don't believe in
censorship/moderated, it's not necessary ... I don't want to say them
they are wrong either, it's just the wrong space and
comp.compression.random would be the right space.
I don't know, I would be surprised if I'm the only "interested" in
the seperation ... probably I would be very sad because I'd asume
nobody else really cares about comp.compression and it's essence ...
Well, this discussion is obviously about determining the state of
mind of my fellow readers and writer and my part I think is to
convince them, that it'd be better for all.
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Marty
Ciao
Niels
Metatron
> where regulars in a group want to push some of the discussion into a
> different group. �If the members holding that discussion want to move to
> a different group, that's great! �If they don't want to move, creating
> the group will not help the parent group. �Instead, it will just add to
> the noise with extra netcopping posts, "No, you can't talk about that
> here, you have to move to the other group." "No, I don't want to move,
> I'll talk about it here."
I do understand your argument. But I actually make the proposal not
to force anybody out, it's not even that I don't want the discussion
(Chavesque) ... The problem is that earlier or later somebody comes up
with the idea to make .compression moderated, and that's the worst
case that could have success.
They do want their space (there were just two expressing agreement, I
have to send them here ...), they should also have their space, and
they must not be muted (in my opinion). Their topic is also in need of
credibility, so they need their space also to not get flamed once
somebody just sees their name.
Look, both sides are really worn down. I do believe both sides can
and want to occupy and basically also interchange opinion. Just not
under this condition (an Encyclopedia is not for publishing conspiracy
theories, that doesn't mean they are reduntant or untrue or less
worth).
So from that point of view I do not want to kick them out. I really
am trying to be their advocate.
Do you actually have experience with the NIMBY case? How was the
mediation? You got a case reverted too?
Ciao
Niels
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<54b89728-e060-480c...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:
> Well do you offer me the deal to exchange comp.compression.research
>by comp.compression.random? Just kiddin.
Heh heh. Thanks for the laugh. :o)
> You can be well assured that it is even a (very real) possibility
>that .random has more posts at the end of the year than .compression.
>That is not about that there are so much people inventing and
>discussion their random compression algorithms, it's about the very
>persistant crowd of people that try to make those understand.
What I would like to see is a fair number of those people post
here in n.g.p or c.c that they are ready and willing to move
their discussion to c.c.r. You judge that if there was a topic
space opened up for them, they would migrate. You may be right.
I'll feel a lot more inclined to vote yes if some of the
potential migrants endorse your view.
>You
>know, there (under this topic) are two sides than can endlessly talk
>about that topic without giving way, and the threads bloat like a
>atomic mushrooms.
Some people seem to enjoy making threads mushroom. Call
it recreational decompression maybe. They are performance
artists of a sort. But they need a foil for their
"art"--and an audience.
>It is really really difficult to maintain a regular
>interest for the general group if all you see is completly off-topic!
>I can't make statistics about people going away from comp.compression
>because of that ...
Understood.
> So the thing is I care about comp.compression, I like to talk about
>algorithms there and help people regarding their own inventions or
>whatever, using zlib. This space should be appropriate for that kind
>of talk, that's why the group exists. And it's simply necessary to be
>able to move this discussion into its own space.
I understand your motivation. I'm skeptical about the good
effects of creating the "right" group for the argumentative
types to move to. I don't have any training or expertise
in the area of compression--I'm just a grateful and satisfied
customer of the end product; but my Wildly Amateurish Guess
is that the random-compressionists are not wholly rational
people. If they had an algorithm that worked, wouldn't it
be on the market? They could silence their critics by
actually writing the programs instead of just visualizing
them in their imagination.
Such people may not want to move to the rational namespace
for their work.
>I don't believe in
>censorship/moderated, it's not necessary ... I don't want to say them
>they are wrong either, it's just the wrong space and
>comp.compression.random would be the right space.
Be honest now. You go ahead and say they're wrong. I won't
hold it against you. You imply it when you say that "it's
just the wrong space." If random data can be compressed,
it falls under the general idea of compression, doesn't
it? It can only be the "wrong space" if the backers of
the idea are somewhat wrong-headed.
> I don't know, I would be surprised if I'm the only "interested" in
>the seperation ... probably I would be very sad because I'd asume
>nobody else really cares about comp.compression and its essence ...
If we opened talk.nonsense (the talk.* hierarchy is a little
light on newsgroups), maybe we could get them all to go over
there. :o(
> Well, this discussion is obviously about determining the state of
>mind of my fellow readers and writer and my part I think is to
>convince them that it'd be better for all.
1. Convince them.
2. Get them to post in the relevant threads.
3. Collect the feedback.
4. Revise your RFD in view of the discussion, if needed.
5. When you think you've got as much support as you're
going to get, submit the Final RFD / Last Call for
Comments. When that's published in n.a.n, that will
kick off a process of formal voting on the part of
the board.
Marty
--
Co-chair of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB) <http://www.big-8.org>
Unless otherwise indicated, I speak for myself, not for the Board.
Metatron
> Metatron wrote:
> > � � � � � � � � � � � REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > � � � � � � �unmoderated group comp.compression.random
>
> > This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> > unmoderated newsgroup comp.compression.random.
>
> suspects from posting here, causing the distraction that should be
> avoided in first place. (-;
>
> So long,
> � � � � Thomas
Yes, but you are seeing it from a slightly skewed angle. The point is
not that if that group exists, that in .compression all can sleep in
peace. It's not the wonderweapon against an enemy, it's no weapon and
there are no enemies! People come as they can and as naive as they may
be, but in this moment they are shot on sight. You can't even give
them a hug, and say there they can really talk about their topic,
there are others that made all the similar stuff, there are also those
that are critic and possibly even very hard and honest. They can't
really consult the archive, they can't really follow the stories of
other 'achievements'.
In this very moment you and the others and me who are actually
talking (and not lurkers), we have no way, we are pressed into
comp.compression all together and each side (because it's a technical
issue!) has the absolute conviction of being morally above the others,
because we are caged in that same space.
And probably subconciously it's also because about the space itself,
because in the absence of a moral absolutum "who has the right to
suppress/fight/disturb my desire to talk about my invention, which is
about compression after all, and this is the space about
compression ..." and vice versa.
I won't be able to promise that we'll get the honey-and-milk country
I suggested above, but how much easier will mediation become in the
presence of that group. And how much more may be talked about the
subject itself, and how much more understanding may be gained just
because you are not in automatic defense or attack. Maybe even
humor. :^)
It has been proven every time and then again, since fiveteen years
that it is of interest to a group of people, they do search to
communicate it with everybody (for or against), and that it is of
interest to even suspicious people to support that in one or another
way (even something simple as to post a link to a past experience).
And actually I don't even believe that there really are people in
comp.compression that would deny .random just because of a moral
superiority, or a logic or scientific if you wish. I think it's clear
to most that the existance of a newsgroup has nothing to do with 'the
correctness of the topic'.
You wouldn't be against it, right? :) Why would you, if?
Ciao
Niels
Steve Bonine
> I won't be able to promise that we'll get the honey-and-milk country
> I suggested above, but how much easier will mediation become in the
> presence of that group. And how much more may be talked about the
> subject itself, and how much more understanding may be gained just
> because you are not in automatic defense or attack. Maybe even
> humor. :^)
You are making two assumptions that, if they are correct, will improve
the discussion of the topic of compression.
1. You're assuming that all of the people who want to discuss the
subtopic of compressing random data will move to the new group, where
they will be able to discuss this topic without flames,
2. You're assuming that none of the flamers will bother with the new group.
> You wouldn't be against it, right? :) Why would you, if?
Because, if your two assumptions above are incorrect, creating the new
group will result in an entry in the list of groups, and nothing more.
It could, in fact, result in a degradation in the discussion in
comp.compression.
What happens if the new group is created, and no one uses it? In this
case we have a dead newsgroup in the list, which is not a big deal as it
joins hundreds of others. But what is the result for the existing
comp.compression group? In addition to all the noise that you've got
today, you'll have additional noise from people trying to get the
discussion moved to the "correct" newsgroup. The net result is negative.
And look at it from the perspective of the prospective users of
comp.compression.random. Why should they move? Do you really believe
that the new newsgroup will be "honey-and-milk"? Many of the folks who
feel that it's their moral duty to rebuke the folks who want to discuss
compression of random data will simply take their flames to the new
group. What's in it for the folks you're trying to get rid of? Nothing.
The success of the proposed group depends on whether people who want to
discuss compression of random data will move their discussion to the new
group. It does NOT depend on whether the people who do NOT want to
discuss that topic think that the new group is a good idea.
Frankly, given what I've seen so far (and it's early in the process), I
have to conclude that the people discussing compression of random data
would not move to a new group. The fact that they're currently
discussing the topic in a hostile environment suggests to me that
they're not particularly rational, and the fact that the new environment
would likely be just as hostile doesn't enhance the probability that
they will move.
This conclusion will change if I see a few people say that they will
post in the proposed group. So far that number is a good solid zero.
Paul
I have replied to group in the news.groups.proposals newsgroup, but I never
see my posts show up there. I get emails from the moderators of the groups
when I do, saying they received them, but I never see them posted. So I
just wanted to say that I support the desire for the new group but not sure
my voice is getting heard over in the news.groups.proposals newsgroup.
Paul
Kathy Morgan
> So the thing is I care about comp.compression, I like to talk about
> algorithms there and help people regarding their own inventions or
> whatever, using zlib. This space should be appropriate for that kind
> of talk, that's why the group exists. And it's simply necessary to be
> able to move this discussion into it's own space. I don't believe in
> censorship/moderated, it's not necessary ... I don't want to say them
> they are wrong either, it's just the wrong space and
> comp.compression.random would be the right space.
It sounds to me like the real problem is not the posts by people who
want to discuss compression of random strings, it's the resultant flames
and responses from people who do not believe random strings can be
compressed.
So far, no one has spoken up to say they want to use the proposed group;
all I have seen is people saying they want the random compression
discussion to leave comp.compression. I don't believe that would happen
even if we did create comp.compression.random.
It seems to me you have few viable choices: 1) You can maintain the
current status quo, with a low signal/noise ratio, 2) Those who do not
want to discuss random compression can learn to ignore the posts about
random compression and educate newcomers on how to respond only to posts
that do not involve random compression. (The second choice is made much
easier by using a good newsreader with killfile or scoring capabilities;
you and other regulars might need to abandon use of Google Groups and
learn to use a good newsreader.)
Another possibility would be to create a moderated companion group to
which posters like you, Jim Leonard and Thomas Richter could move.
There does not seem to be a desire for that so I don't believe it would
succeed.
--
Kathy, speaking only for myself
Paul
"Kathy Morgan" <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1j14wcx.12moxwb1ode2faN%kmo...@spamcop.net...
Kathy, if the new group gets created, I will use it. I'm one of those
people that get flamed often here in comp.compression.
Paul
Tom St Denis
> "Kathy Morgan" <kmor...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
And rightly so. I too am for this new group. If we can sequester the
troll population the world will be a better place.
Tom
Paul
"Tom St Denis" <t...@iahu.ca> wrote in message
news:a5b4aab9-7ec0-49d5...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, Tom. Good, we can count on you as another supporter. ;-) Why
don't you go ahead and post in the news.groups.proposals group and tell them
your desire for it as well, that is unless your just trolling here.
Paul
jules Gilbert
> "Tom St Denis" <t...@iahu.ca> wrote in messagenews:a5b4aab9-7ec0-49d5...@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
This is an excellent idea.
===================
--jg
Metatron
> You are making two assumptions that, if they are correct, will improve
> the discussion of the topic of compression.
Yes, but I'm also aware that I can't through sheer will make it
happen and become good. I know I can't be the placeholder for those
who'd like to have the group, they have to stand for their own in the
final instance. But I hope I can kickstart those that are maybe
intimidated.
> The success of the proposed group depends on whether people who want to
> discuss compression of random data will move their discussion to the new
> group. �It does NOT depend on whether the people who do NOT want to
> discuss that topic think that the new group is a good idea.
I know, that's why I express the argument about the utility of the
new group in a positive way. I'm mean there is the chance in it, just
need to be taken.
> Frankly, given what I've seen so far (and it's early in the process), I
> have to conclude that the people discussing compression of random data
> would not move to a new group. �The fact that they're currently
> discussing the topic in a hostile environment suggests to me that
> they're not particularly rational, and the fact that the new environment
> would likely be just as hostile doesn't enhance the probability that
> they will move.
Well, I guess an additional presumption of mine is that people would
behave differently (in .random context) while still trying to
enlighten them. I think it's easier to be kind if you respect the
other sides position (and if just as a temporary hypothesis). But I'm
going in circles. :^)
> This conclusion will change if I see a few people say that they will
> post in the proposed group. �So far that number is a good solid zero.
Paul had something to say but apparently has technical difficulties:
-- snipp --
Paul
-- snipp --
Ciao
Niels
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<6866bdde-d82c-489b...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>:
>Paul had something to say but apparently has technical difficulties:
Paul has had three posts make it to n.g.p:
Message-ID: <fBSXl.1368$Gn4...@newsfe10.iad>
Message-ID: <TR8Yl.3990$gz5....@newsfe07.iad>
Message-ID: <TR8Yl.3987$gz5....@newsfe07.iad>
Thomas Richter
> On 10 Jun., 23:19, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Metatron wrote:
>>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>>> unmoderated group comp.compression.random
>>> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>> unmoderated newsgroup comp.compression.random.
>> As much as I would like the idea, I afraid it wouldn't stop the usual
>> suspects from posting here, causing the distraction that should be
>> avoided in first place. (-;
>>
>> So long,
>> Thomas
>
> Yes, but you are seeing it from a slightly skewed angle. The point is
> not that if that group exists, that in .compression all can sleep in
> peace. It's not the wonderweapon against an enemy, it's no weapon and
> there are no enemies!
Please notice the "(-;" at the end - no there is no enemy, there are only
a) naive people, and
b) trolls
which causes a rather bad signal/noise ratio here, or in the terms of
the group, a rather low entropy that makes it hard to extract relevant
information.
> You wouldn't be against it, right? :) Why would you, if?
All you say is correct, but those issues cannot be addressed by a new
group. In fact, a group for the "reverse", namely "serious people from
research" does exist. It is comp.compression.research. It's just that
nobody uses it. IOW, comp.compression *is* already the "loony group" you
want to create (-: (Note the smiley!) in first place. Rather, the "we
believe in science" folks should move out and leave comp.compression for
others, since there *is* a group for all the die-hards that "believe"
that mathematics work and 1+1 = 2 holds true, even on Jupiter and on
Monday afternoons.
However, like it or not, c.c.research is *empty*. So what can be done
about it? The problem has been detected correctly, but unfortunately the
solution doesn't fit it.
There is a FAQ (nobody cared), there is Wikipedia, there are textbooks,
education in math in schools and in university... Neither will help,
only continuous effort *here* will. Except for a minority of
scam-artists, many posters claiming compression of i.i.d.
equal-distributed data - after all - never return, and I think that this
*is* a success; more for them then for the quality of the group. It *is*
the quality of the group since apparently those people learned
something, but most are (a very human move) too proud to admit their error.
IOW, why change something if it works?
So long,
Thomas
Metatron
> > >> Kathy, if the new group gets created, I will use it. �I'm one of those
> > >> people that get flamed often here in comp.compression.
>
> > > And rightly so. �I too am for this new group. �If we can sequester the
> > > troll population the world will be a better place.
>
> > > Tom
>
> > Exactly, Tom. �Good, we can count on you as another supporter. �;-) �Why
> > don't you go ahead and post in the news.groups.proposals group and tell them
> > your desire for it as well, that is unless your just trolling here.
>
> > Paul
>
> This is an excellent idea.
> ===================
>
> --jg
Jules, we are here together for a very long time, even maybe we
didn't intersect in our talks. Would you see a reason for a new group?
Or you allready got stone-skin after all this, and don't care? :)
Ciao
Niels
Metatron
> Kathy, if the new group gets created, I will use it. �I'm one of those
> people that get flamed often here in comp.compression.
>
> Paul
Which people would you hope to find there? You allready know what
you'd like to share or exchange or chat in a new group? Why do you
want the group?
Ciao
Niels
Kathy Morgan
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:23:55 CST, Metatron <spam...@adsignum.com> wrote in
> <6866bdde-d82c-489b...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Paul had something to say but apparently has technical difficulties:
>
> Paul has had three posts make it to n.g.p:
>
> Message-ID: <fBSXl.1368$Gn4...@newsfe10.iad>
>
> Message-ID: <TR8Yl.3990$gz5....@newsfe07.iad>
>
> Message-ID: <TR8Yl.3987$gz5....@newsfe07.iad>
Hmmm....very interesting. None of those posts appear to have made it to
the Individual.Net server.
Niels, I would appreciate it if you would quote Paul's posts into ngp,
because I have not seen them here.
Thanks,
Kathy Morgan
> All you say is correct, but those issues cannot be addressed by a new
> group. In fact, a group for the "reverse", namely "serious people from
> research" does exist. It is comp.compression.research. It's just that
> nobody uses it.
Comp.compression.research is a moderated group whose moderator appears
to have left his post, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Does anyone
know who the most recent moderator of record is and whether he might be
willing to hand the group over to someone else? As long as there is no
active moderator to approve posts, no one can use
comp.compression.research. Would members of comp.compression be
interested in using comp.compression.research for a higher signal/noise
ratio if the group were again functional?
--
Kathy, speaking just for myself
Goldy
> Because, if your two assumptions above are incorrect, creating the new
> group will result in an entry in the list of groups, and nothing more.
> It could, in fact, result in a degradation in the discussion in
> comp.compression.
>
> What happens if the new group is created, and no one uses it? �In this
> case we have a dead newsgroup in the list, which is not a big deal as it
> joins hundreds of others. �But what is the result for the existing
> comp.compression group? �In addition to all the noise that you've got
> today, you'll have additional noise from people trying to get the
> discussion moved to the "correct" newsgroup. �The net result is negative.
>
First off, I've gotten the impression that those who get flamed in
comp.compression is because people have NO OTHER NEWS GROUP to talk
about it in, hence this proposal.
Second, I can see the flamers in c.c telling those who end up in c.c
asking about R.D.C. being something along the lines of "You need to
join the nut jobs in comp.compression.random", not because their
assholes, but because they to are sick and tired of hearing people
talk about it. Both sides are sick of the other.
> And look at it from the perspective of the prospective users of
> comp.compression.random. �Why should they move? �Do you really believe
> that the new newsgroup will be "honey-and-milk"? �Many of the folks who
> feel that it's their moral duty to rebuke the folks who want to discuss
> compression of random data will simply take their flames to the new
> group. �What's in it for the folks you're trying to get rid of? �Nothing.
>
Probably not, their are always the assholes out their, and that will
never change, and some might come flame in the new group......shit
happens.
"moral duty to rebuke the folks..".....WTF? It's about numbers, not
morals. Morals and numbers are like oil and water.
> The success of the proposed group depends on whether people who want to
> discuss compression of random data will move their discussion to the new
> group. �It does NOT depend on whether the people who do NOT want to
> discuss that topic think that the new group is a good idea.
>
I WILL GLADLY MAKE THAT MOVE!
> Frankly, given what I've seen so far (and it's early in the process), I
> have to conclude that the people discussing compression of random data
> would not move to a new group. �
You think people don't want a place to go where they can meet other
like minded people? You are way wrong about that.
You think people enjoy being excited about their ideas to only be
flamed by "those who know"? Not the case.
> The fact that they're currently
> discussing the topic in a hostile environment suggests to me that
> they're not particularly rational, and the fact that the new environment
> would likely be just as hostile doesn't enhance the probability that
> they will move.
>
Again, the reason people end up in comp.compression is because no
other news group exist that they could choose from...ie, they didn't
have much of a choice.
It's perfectly rational, because MOST of the folks that came to
comp.compression asking about R.D.C. don't come back, BECAUSE THEY GET
FLAMED!
> This conclusion will change if I see a few people say that they will
> post in the proposed group. �So far that number is a good solid zero.
I WILL! Now it's one.
Take Paul, that makes two.
I can recall years and years ago when I started down the path of
research R.D.C.
All I could find was comp.compression and a few web sites. None of
the web sites had a chat or forum about the topic. So the only
logical choice was to go to comp.compression.
Now if I had to choose between comp.compression and
comp.compression.random, guess which one I would
choose......hrm.....see my point.
You can't say "they have a choice" when it's either comp.compression
or nothing.
Yes, their are other newsgroups, but comp.compression is the best fit
name that new comers find, and that's where they always end up because
they don't have much of a choice.
So before you state that people won't make the change, why don't we
get the group created, then see what happens after a year or so. Does
it hurt anyone to make a new news group???
If nobody post to the group, then feel free to come back and say I
told you so. Until then, please, keep an open mind and lets give it a
try.
Paul
"Metatron" <spam...@adsignum.com> wrote in message
news:50638efd-4f05-474c...@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Would be nice to have a place to share ideas on what doesn't work and what
has had some success without the trolls flaming you every 5 minutes.
Paul
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<68f3808d-9aea-40bc...@y34g2000prb.googlegroups.com>:
> ... Does
>it hurt anyone to make a new news group?
As Steve Bonine indicated, the only problem with
adding a dead-on-arrival group is that it will
join hundreds of other dead groups on our
list.
There seem to be a sufficient number of servers
willing to go along with creation requests that
the group can probably be propagated enough to
consider it "created."
Getting rid of dead groups seems to be less
effective.
>If nobody post to the group, then feel free to come back and say I
>told you so. Until then, please, keep an open mind and let's give it a
>try.
It doesn't take a large number to persuade me to
vote for giving it a try. "2" is too small.
I'd like to see a minyan--at least ten.
A newsgroup with no news is no fun.
Marty
Metatron
> Comp.compression.research is a moderated group whose moderator appears
> to have left his post, either voluntarily or involuntarily. �Does anyone
> know who the most recent moderator of record is and whether he might be
> willing to hand the group over to someone else?
Ross Williams made the RFD and Voting, and initially the group was
proposed unmoderated. Peter Gutman was/is first moderator. I wrote
both a querry. Let's see.
Besides that I'd agree to take an active role if people would
seriously want to use .reseach for bleeding-edge-discussion, means I
would volunteer for moderator (allthough there are more 'qualified'
fellas, it's just adinistrative work after all). But first I'd
honestly try to make .research unmoderated. I do research, and I often
think my posts may be misplaced. .research has in the moment sort of
the image of the altar you look up to or something. More or less.
Probably because it is empty and moderated. LOL (I don't want to hurt
anybody's feeling about the church, but that's funny).
> As long as there is no
> active moderator to approve posts, no one can use
> comp.compression.research. �Would members of comp.compression be
> interested in using comp.compression.research for a higher signal/noise
> ratio if the group were again functional?
There are at least posts that qualify, there are several people
proposing new ideas and create and publish original work. I can even
imagine that posts which ask for an explanation of the inner workings
about compressors (not the implementation self-understood) would be
well seen there as well. Just to make a rough estimate I would not
expect the group to have more frequency than .random (I guess the two
group of people are equally big and animate (phun implied) ;^) ) There
once was .theory discussion but rejected, my archives doesn't reach
that far, so I can't say if the reasoning against that group is void
now.
How are the others seeing it? Mihai, Dave, Nemo, for example?
But that's not really related to this RFD, we'd have to make another
and try to revert the moderation-state, right?
Ciao
Niels
Tom St Denis
> "Metatron" <spamt...@adsignum.com> wrote in message
What discussion? All of your [and your elk] posts are "I can't show
you until I protect my idea with a patent."
So I question what you'd discuss there, that you can't here.
Please fill me in.
Tom
Kathy Morgan
> On 12 Jun., 08:26, kmor...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Comp.compression.research is a moderated group whose moderator appears
> > to have left his post, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Does anyone
> > know who the most recent moderator of record is and whether he might be
> > willing to hand the group over to someone else?
>
> Ross Williams made the RFD and Voting, and initially the group was
> proposed unmoderated. Peter Gutman was/is first moderator. I wrote
> both a querry. Let's see.
Thanks! Let us know the results.
> Besides that I'd agree to take an active role if people would
> seriously want to use .reseach for bleeding-edge-discussion, means I
> would volunteer for moderator (allthough there are more 'qualified'
> fellas, it's just adinistrative work after all). But first I'd
> honestly try to make .research unmoderated.
That is extremely unlikely to happen. The problem is that some servers
would honor a request to unmoderated the group, but others wouldn't.
This seriously fractures the discussion, because people using a server
that shows the group as moderated will not see any of the posts made by
people using servers that correctly show the group as unmoderated and
those servers would not propagate posts from servers that show it as
unmoderated. Since there would no longer be a moderator to approve
their posts, they're also unlikely to see their own messages to the
group. (A robot could be set up to automatically approve all messages,
but that means finding a volunteer to operate the 'bot.)
--
Kathy, member of B8MB, speaking only for myself.
Doug Freyburger
> kmor...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Comp.compression.research is a moderated group whose moderator appears
> > to have left his post, either voluntarily or involuntarily. �Does anyone
> > know who the most recent moderator of record is and whether he might be
> > willing to hand the group over to someone else?
>
> seriously want to use .reseach for bleeding-edge-discussion, means I
> would volunteer for moderator (allthough there are more 'qualified'
> fellas, it's just adinistrative work after all).
You could post a Moderator Vacancy Investigation request.
> But first I'd
> honestly try to make .research unmoderated ...
Changing the moderator of a group is a matter of process.
Changing the moderation status of a newsgroup is completely
out of the question. It's been tried and the result was over a
decade of chaos. No such request will be approved.
> �How are the others seeing it? Mihai, Dave, Nemo, for example?
> �But that's not really related to this RFD, we'd have to make another
> and try to revert the moderation-state, right?
No, do an MVI and volunteer to take over the moderation.
If the .research group went active again, would your expected
content be natural in that group? The advantage of moderation
is doing carefully can ensure a flame-free environment in the
group. The disadvantage of moderation is the narrower topic
always results in lower traffic - The traffic level of moderated
newsgroups across UseNet is low and it becomes easy to
compare traffic and make incorrect conclusion based on that.
Metatron
> That is extremely unlikely to happen. �The problem is that some servers
> would honor a request to unmoderated the group, but others wouldn't.
> This seriously fractures the discussion, because people using a server
> that shows the group as moderated will not see any of the posts made by
> people using servers that correctly show the group as unmoderated and
> those servers would not propagate posts from servers that show it as
> unmoderated. �Since there would no longer be a moderator to approve
> their posts, they're also unlikely to see their own messages to the
> group. �(A robot could be set up to automatically approve all messages,
> but that means finding a volunteer to operate the 'bot.)
Uhm, how complicated. I have running dedicated servers I can run the
bot on, and I would. I'm also responsible enough to report on system-
failures, be it mine or of my resources (well except I get shot,
that's not such a weird idea in the country I'm living). Is just
missing the POST-server. I'd like to prevent direct cost (I'd
obviously absorb all my voluntary "cost"), so if possibly a University
or I don't know who could gift us that?
Ciao
Niels
Metatron
> You could post a Moderator Vacancy Investigation request.
> No, do an MVI and volunteer to take over the moderation.
Okay, I give Ross and Peter some time, and well whatever comes we
figure it our then.
> If the .research group went active again, would your expected
> content be natural in that group?
My expected content ... ? As I said there is content produced in c.c.
which fits perfectly. I wished at times I've could have been able to
post to c.c.r. Natural in the full sense of the name and charter, yes.
And with content comes probably also a better perception of where one
sees a post fit better, in c.c. or c.c.r.
> The advantage of moderation
> is doing carefully can ensure a flame-free environment in the
> group. �The disadvantage of moderation is the narrower topic
> always results in lower traffic - The traffic level of moderated
> newsgroups across UseNet is low and it becomes easy to
> compare traffic and make incorrect conclusion based on that.
The fun is that I think flaming is extremely unlikely in .research,
except one assumes/d that the random compression discussion would have
migrated there. Then flaming would possibly be even more agressive
(defending credibility).
Ciao
Niels
Metatron
> There is a FAQ (nobody cared)
Just a quick note about this. Under Mark's initiative we reworked the
FAQ, I even added relevant new sections; and I update sections; but I
feel incapable of maintaining the entire FAQ as a whole. I'm not
versatile/up-to-date/professional in each and every topic regarding
compression.
Still people post links to the outdated FAQ-archive. [Because] There
is also nobody sending FAQ-reminders (well Mark did, but yearly), and/
or the FAQ itself. Kathy and you are right in that we seem in need of
becoming a bit more structured, in that I also take responsability in
not having at least reacted to the obvious appropriately within the
group.
But that are three seperate things, determining what/how/where/
why .random (this is upto those supporting it for themself), what's up
with .research (this is a loong pending issue) and becoming
constructive in .compression. "Solving" one of it doesn't "solve" any
of the other.
Ciao
Niels
Dave Sill
>
> Changing the moderation status of a newsgroup is completely
> out of the question. It's been tried and the result was over a
> decade of chaos. No such request will be approved.
Let's just say it's very unlikely.
> No, do an MVI and volunteer to take over the moderation.
Yes, and there's nothing that says you can't set up a modbot that
automatically approves everything.
-Dave
Thomas Richter
> Would be nice to have a place to share ideas on what doesn't work and
> what has had some success without the trolls flaming you every 5 minutes.
Nothing against sharing ideas, of course. But, in case somebody claimed
having found a second integer besides 2 between 1 and 3, what can one do
to convince this guy that this defeats elementary mathematics? IOW, at
the time it comes down to elementary logics, and the idea has been shown
to contract such logics, there *is* no discussion. The idea is simply wrong.
So long,
Thomas
Thomas Richter
> On 12 Jun., 01:24, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> There is a FAQ (nobody cared)
>
> Just a quick note about this. Under Mark's initiative we reworked the
> FAQ, I even added relevant new sections; and I update sections; but I
> feel incapable of maintaining the entire FAQ as a whole. I'm not
> versatile/up-to-date/professional in each and every topic regarding
> compression.
Nobody is, not even the followers of the top-rated conferences in this
regard (DCC being one of them). However, I don't think that this is even
required. Most discussion here is on a level that doesn't require a top
scientist of the field, nor should it be. Research questions are
discussed by other means in first place. I'm perfectly fine with the FAQ
as is, and I don't want to imply that it requires updating. It requires
*being read*, that is the point. In a nutshell, 90% of the discussion
here would be gone if the following two principles would be encouraged:
o) Any function from a finite larger set onto a finite smaller set is
not one-to-one.
o) The core of science is independent verification.
I think that's all. Really! Everything beyond that can and should be
discussed here if related to compression. I would be glad if we would
have a couple substantial questions even for the commonly known methods
(Huffman, Lempel-Ziv, Burrows-Wheeler, JPEG), to re-answer them even on
a monthly schedule, and I'm also glad not being able to answer others
(How to design efficient multi-channel coding?), or helping with my
expertise (how to change progression in a JPEG 2000 file). All that is
on-topic, but only a minor percentage of the traffic here.
So long,
Thomas
Paul
"Thomas Richter" <th...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:h0v1sg$sv2$1...@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de...
This is what I'm talking about. It is idiotic statement like these. You
act as if everyone that talks about compressing Random Data is talking about
reducing 1 bit to 0. Come on Tom. You really think we are idiots don't
you. I sure hope we get this new group created so that maybe we can escape
meaningless arguments like that. Reducing Random Data doesn't mean we have
to be able to reduce 1 bit to 0, Tom. There is a whole bunch of us devoted
to compressing what compressors have already compressed. I have had some
success in that very area. So I already know how dumb your argument is.
But at least target your argument to us. I don't know who in working with
Random Data Compression currently that is making such claims. So please
stop showing how irrational your baseless arguments are.
Paul
Thomas Richter
>> claimed having found a second integer besides 2 between 1 and 3, what
>> can one do to convince this guy that this defeats elementary
>> mathematics? IOW, at the time it comes down to elementary logics, and
>> the idea has been shown to contract such logics, there *is* no
>> discussion. The idea is simply wrong.
>>
>> So long,
>> Thomas
>
> This is what I'm talking about. It is idiotic statement like these.
> You act as if everyone that talks about compressing Random Data is
> talking about reducing 1 bit to 0. Come on Tom. You really think we
> are idiots don't you.
The precise statement is: "Everybody trying to compress a zero-order
uniformly distributed i.i.d. random source is an idiot." If this is what
you're trying to do, then yes, "You are an idiot." (you're saying that,
not me) and for the same reason as I did above: It is provably impossible.
> I sure hope we get this new group created so that
> maybe we can escape meaningless arguments like that.
There is a very precise meaning to all the words I've used. In case they
mean nothing to you, you should get educated, as you need them for your
research. You can even get that here, for asking meaningful questions.
For example, here are a couple of them:
o) What means zero order?
o) What is a random source?
o) What means i.i.d?
o) What is a distribution?
> Reducing Random
> Data doesn't mean we have to be able to reduce 1 bit to 0, Tom.
It implies that. Or to put it precisely, the following is true:
"If a random source of the properties above can be compressed, then you
can reduce 1 bit to 0". Or, a second true statement, if you like it
better: "If a random source of the properties above can be compressed,
then there is a second integer between 1 and 3". That sounds like an
idiotic statement for you, then this is because the first statement is
also idiotic. No less, no more. It defeats logic. Just that identifying
the first statement as nonsense takes a little bit (but not much) longer.
> There
> is a whole bunch of us devoted to compressing what compressors have
> already compressed.
You're mixing things up. First of all, this is not random data. However,
as the performance of a compressor increases, the output data of it
looks considerably more and more like "random data", which means it is
considerably harder to compress it. This statement can be proven
rigorously, using a very precise definition of what "looks like" really
means, and in case you care for a proof, look at Robert Grey's
publication in this years DCC proceedings, for example. IOW, while I'm
not saying that you cannot compress it, you cannot compress it by a lot,
and there is a limit for it (called the entropy. Again, understanding
this would be an excellent question of yours).
> I have had some success in that very area. So I
> already know how dumb your argument is.
You miss point #2: "Verification". Thus, you have a claim, and if you
would dare to learn a bit more, you would see that you're - likely -
unable to reconstruct. "Likely" because I don't know your claims, and I
don't know how much you compress. I can also compress gzip output, for
example, some of it at least, but this is not "random data compression".
> But at least target your
> argument to us. I don't know who in working with Random Data
> Compression currently that is making such claims. So please stop
> showing how irrational your baseless arguments are.
See, and that's the same kind of logic people use that claim to have
found a second integer between 1 and 3: "Reversal of the burden of
proof, fear, uncertainty and doubt", the arguments of all "random data
compressors" - or the absence of any logical arguments. Thus, instead of
providing arguments, you're getting personal.
Why don't you make *precise*, *substantial* and *verifiable* statements
like I do? The big difference between us, Paul, is that I provide
evidence that you're doing nonsense - unlike you. This is what science
is up to. My point is not that I criticize you because I like to
criticize people - I'm doing that because you're continuously refusing
to *learn* the basics of your field and use a precise language.
So long,
Thomas
Peter J Ross
<spam...@adsignum.com> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group comp.compression.random
>
> This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
> unmoderated newsgroup comp.compression.random.
>
> NEWSGROUPS LINE:
> comp.compression.random Random data compression algorithms and derivates.
(wrapping fixed)
You really need a "For your newsgroups file:" line if INN is to
extract your Description from the newgroup message.
I don't write the INN code; my opinion is based on what the INN
developers have told me about the default behaviour of their software.
The uk.* hierarchy also uses this "NEWSGROUPS LINE:" stuff, so maybe
it's an INN bug.
> RATIONALE:
>
> In the past and actuality comp.compression has become extremly
> inflated
> due to an increasing amount of discussion related to random data
> compression and or questions regarding patents about those.
But such discussion is on-topic in comp.compression. It will continue
to be on-topic in comp.compression whether your proposed group is
newgrouped or not, since you haven't proposed any changes to the c.c
charter.
After only one sentence, I'm already getting the impression that this
is a NIMBY[1] group, and nothing you write later changes that impression.
If people who want to discuss "random compression" want a new group to
discuss it in, that's fine. But if people who don't want to discuss
the topic in comp.compression want to avoid the topic, I suggest that
they might like to start using killfiles.
<...>
In general, your "Rationale" seems like a set of personal
reminiscences and opinions, not a useful Rationale for a new
newsgroup.
Assuming that you're a NIMBY proponent, you probably won't want to
spend hours and days of your life making comp.compression.random a
success. Is anybody willing to do the work, or is the group to be
newgrouped merely because about two people express lukewarm support
for the idea?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Metatron
> > �Ross Williams made the RFD and Voting, and initially the group was
> > proposed unmoderated. Peter Gutman was/is first moderator. I wrote
> > both a querry. Let's see.
>
> Thanks! �Let us know the results.
Okay, I have very nice result to report. Peter is active and alive,
and would make me moderator or co-moderator of c.c.r. I would boy POST
on "news.individual.net" (or any news-server you can suggest me for
text-group moderation, I have no interest in any alt.* or binary
access whatsoever).
Then I'm going to set up assisted robo-moderatrion and will go ahead
and try to reastablich reminders for the "new" FAQ as well as actively
inviting people to use c.c.r. for research-related on-topic
discussions. I have anyway other projects under the (voluntar)
supervision that defenitely fullfill c.c.r. charter which means we're
going to at least have some repetitive auto-activity to bring to mind
that that group indeed is not dead!
Very much thanks for triggering my initiative into this direction.
Ciao
Niels
P.S.: It's Me_t_atron (look in the Kabalah, he's the keeper of
information/librarian, and that's what I am), I don't feel Me_g_a, and
it's not my choice yet (GG). I'll be back, with real-name. ;)
Metatron
> Since that is not longer possible, the choices now are to either
> reactivate a dead moderated newsgroup for compression,
> comp.compression.research (hoping that the "rigorous" compression
> participants move there) or make a throwaway newsgroup for discussion
> about the junk science (hoping that the "nuts" move there and take up a
> new home, possibly giving them a platform for recruiting naive others
> into their nuttiness). �Lovely.
Well, let's say in a wide sense of the charter and/or the name you
can discuss any "legitimite" compression and or coding of random
(appearing) sources in the group. That means also you can discuss ways
to not expand random sources too much with a specific compressor, or
which criteria lead to real "bad" expansion. That's up to the people
how they feel to put into context their exchange.
And even if that one claim of recursive compression may be critizised
or prooven wrong, that doesn't mean there must never come out
something else practical out of that area of research, or that there
is no respectable talent in those who embraced the topic. That's why I
think we shouldn't fight about the truthfullness of that one claim
(out of much related) and play ursupator of the topic as a whole (and
that's what's happening, there is no space left to talk about chances,
in the end all is just filled up with denial).
> Another question would be, is there any
> interest in reactivating the moderated newsgroup
> comp.compression.research for discussion of compression theory that is
> rigorous and supported by the mainstream scientific community?
On it's way.
Ciao
Niels
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<be9a5aa0-7d27-47de...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>:
> P.S.: It's Me_t_atron (look in the Kabalah, he's the keeper of
>information/librarian, and that's what I am), I don't feel Me_g_a, and
>it's not my choice yet (GG). I'll be back, with real-name. ;)
My apologies!
I'm not all done with stupid. There's lots more where
that came from. :o(
Paul
So what is the verdict? Are we going to get the comp.compression.random
group? If not, then I can open my forum up to a section devoted to this and
bypass usenet all together. If there is that much red tape it may not be
worth it. I already have my own random compression project established
there as a thread (www.tretbase.com/forum) and I could open up a subforum
dedicated to the subject.
Paul
Metatron
The discussion period is maybe a month (round-about I think),
definitely longer than the 6 days we've had yet. This is to give
infrequent readers and posters a chance to participate in the
discussion.
After that we ask the board if we need to collect last comments, and/
or we can proceed to vote. You have to convince the board and/or
enough people in comp.compression which convince the board that the
intentions in creating the newsgroup are not only serious but also
sensefull.
Several board-members stated that they will support the creation of
the group if/when there comes enough positive feedback from
proponents, and not so much "storage track" feedback from RDC
opponents.
That means you should for example try to find discussion partners in-
and outside of comp.compression which express their (active) support
for the group. Martin suggested an amount of ca. 10 people (which is
not very much, comp.compression.research was (almost) unanimously
agreed with 312 yes-sayers, and the group hasn't been used since
(sarc.). :^)
You see it's not much, but at least that should be it. Otherwise (and
I actually agree on that) even the call-for-vote may be rejected.
Ciao
Niels