Re: Adjenda Setting

["Roger S. Miller" <rgrmill@rt66.com>]

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, James Purchase set an agenda:
 

I agree with James on A. and B.

> C. Endorsement / Backing -

>From Karen's comment re: equal access for people without computers and
internet we may have to adjust things a little, but what the heck.
 
> 
> D. Name of the Beast -

I like a version of 2:

        The AGA International Aquascaping Show
or even
        The AGA International Aquascaping Show 2000
 
> E. Entries - Acceptable Formats
> 
> - Entries may consist of Photographic Prints, Transparencies, or Electronic
> Images.

I think we need to restrict the acceptable formats as little as possible,
but I also think that people will need to know what form the material will
be judged in.  That way they can submit their material in that form and
not worry about the loss of quality in conversions.
 
> Electonic images present a bit more of a problem.

I don't think we need to specify *minimum* standards on the submission
quality.  If someone wants to submit a gif or a jpg, then that should be
their choice.  With either format it should still be very easy to see the
aquascaping.  The photo quality may not be as great, but this isn't a
photo contest.

How many non-lossy formats are common to all platforms?  Some sort of
TIFF?  I think there are converters (netpbmplus) that will handle about
anything to anything, so I don't see why we need to require a specific
electronic format.  What we do need to do is have the entrant tell us
exactly what format the file is in, so we don't have to depend too much of
file suffixes for that information.  If for no other reason than that
windows *.bmp files and OS/2 *.bmp files are similar formats that produce
different images.
 
> F. Submission Elements / Constituents:
> 
> - Most folks have said that they favour multiple images per submission, in
> order to be able to get a better feel for the aquascape under consideration.
> Several gave specific numbers, both for maximum and minimum. Please refer to
> my earlier post concerning the limitations on artistic expression (both of
> the aquascaper and the photographer) that any such limits may impose.
> Remember that our purpose is inclusion, not exclusion.

I can remember that, but I would like to remove the possibility that
someone is going to (e.g.) set up their shiney new megapixel camera, snap
120 shots of their tank and send in a CD-ROM stuffed to the gills with
digital images.  Not one person.  Several people.  Does this seem
unlikely?  I just had a cooperator on a project send me a completely
useless, 200 megabyte drawing file.  I think that for practical reasons we
need limits on the total size or number of shots in a submission.

> 
> We have also discussed the other elements of a submission (other than the
> images).

How would the other elements be used for an aquascaping competition?
Would it be displayed online with all of the pictures?  That's a lot of
additional information, and potentially a lot of data entry.

I can see asking for a minimum of additional details to accompany each
entry.  I think it would also be useful to have more information about the
better tanks, including a plan sketch, but that should be gathered *after*
the judging, for the sake of display.

I think a minimum list might be:

> Owner's description of the intent of the design (a paragraph or so)
> Aquarium Volume
> Aquarium Dimensions
> Plant Species list

I'll stop at this point.  It seems like a lot to discuss.

Roger Miller