🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9377.27299857@ul.ie>, oreillyj@ul.ie writes:
> I am writing in reference to setting up a special news group for speech.
> Seemingly this has been suggested before and very little interest has
> been shown.  I can't understand this.

There's a problem with certain types of newsgroup proposals -- those that
propose a group for which there is very little existing traffic.  These
people want to read about a certain area, and hope that someone else will
post good stuff to read.  It really just doesn't work.

comp.dsp is currently small enough that there is plenty of room for people's
postings about speech analysis and synthesis, speech recognition, speaker
recognition, the theory of speech production and reception by human beings,
etc.  Once we have a steady stream of such postings it is THEN time to create
a new group, and not before.  There are significant barriers to getting
such a discussion going -- there's a lot of proprietary information in the
field; many of the researchers aren't on the net and do their writing
and reading in other forums, etc.

I've worked in computer speech recognition and low bit rate voice for
years; on the rare occasions where someone has posted a speech-related
question on this group, I've often mailed answers (I'm not currently working
on speech).  If someone wants to start some discussions, I'll very likely
participate.

But I will oppose any move to create comp.speech until there is demonstrated
volume.
>  As to 
> there being sufficient interest within comp.ai.neural-nets this is not
> evident if you consider the very small number of submissions which relate
> to speech.  

This is the whole point; there is insufficient evidence that there are
enough netters with enough input to keep a comp.speech group going.  Creating
a new group doesn't create the articles for that group.

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck