brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/22/89)
The group-creation guidelines currently remind people that they are only guidelines. This message is not getting through. I propose that this clause of weakness be strengthened with something like this: "These guidelines were created for one purpose: To suggest a means to find fairly objective information on the question of whether a group should exist throughout almost all of USENET. These guidelines suggest a survey of netreaders opinion as a means to that objective information. This is the spirit of these guidelines, and this spirit is what the guidelines are all about. It is important to remember that any act which does not go against the spirit of these guidelines, even if it violates the letter of what is written below, does NOT violate these guidelines." To give an example, (perhaps this example is appropriate for a footnote) what this means is this -- let's say a discussion goes on for 10 days instead of the 14 suggested. Is that against the guidelines? No, unless it's clear that the shorter period is an attempt to compromise the objectivity of the process. Likewise if a vote takes 24 days instead of 30. Too many people are acting like self appointed net.returning.officers, careful to flame pointlessly about technical violations that are no violation of the spirit. I hope to send a message to such people. The other parts about the spirit of the guidelines -- for example that we attempt to get a semi-objective measure of interest in a group to advise, not to dictate to, site admins on what groups to create should stay and be strengthened, too. And indeed, I would mind a further note about the fact that any method with some demonstrable objectivity is good, not just a vote. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473