bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Dan Bernstein) (10/22/89)
The time has come to pretend that this is a real issue, to be discussed
and voted upon like everything else in news.groups. (Should readers of
news.announce.newgroups hear about this? Greg?)
How about the following changes:
1. Near the end of the discussion period, before posting a call for
votes, whoever is planning to tally votes should post a NAME CHECK
to news.announce.newgroups. The NAME CHECK should list all names
proposed for the new group during the discussion period, in
alphabetical order. This means that the name need not be settled
during the discussion period, though settling it would be nice.
2. The vote taker should accept mailed requests to add a name to the
name list. At least three days after the initial NAME CHECK is
posted, the vote taker should post his CALL FOR VOTES in
news.announce.newgroups; the CALL FOR VOTES should list all
proposed names for the new group, including those submitted by
mail, in alphabetical order.
3. Voters should list some or all of the proposed names, each
accompanied by a YES, blank, or NO. YES and NO may have a
number attached, indicating a ``weight''; the weight is 1 by
default. A weight higher than 1 doesn't make that voter more
important; it deemphasizes the names with smaller weights.
4. To tally a single vote, the vote taker should divide the weight
of the YESs by the maximum YES weight, and similarly for the NOs.
(In other words, each vote can contribute any fraction between
1NO and 1YES to each name.) Then he should add up all the YESs
for each group, and add up all the NOs for each proposed name,
taking fractions into account. The vote taker can ignore write-in
names---that was the purpose of the NAME CHECK.
5. Finally, the vote taker should subtract the total NOs from the
total YESs, separately for each name; if the name with the highest
margin has that margin 100 or greater, the group passes with that
name. Otherwise, the group fails.
6. The CALL FOR VOTES should announce the above rules.
7. (This is a big jump:) If the question of moderation versus
nonmoderation is not settled during the discussion period, it
should be handled just like the question of names.
Thoughts:
A. This is a general form of approval voting (that's the name used by
the Mathematical Association of America for their successful version),
STV, the Australian system, the vote-often system, Dan's system, or
whatever you want to call it. The weights eliminate the failures of
the other variants that have been discussed. For example, if you want to
indicate that you approve of rec.aquaria, rec.fish, and rec.aquarium,
are neutral towards comp.society.aquaria, and dislike sci.aquaria:
rec.aquaria YES
sci.aquaria NO
comp.society.aquaria (this line could be left out)
rec.fish YES
rec.aquarium YES
If you really prefer rec.aquaria and only feel slightly inclined
towards rec.fish, and consider comp.society.aquaria a lesser evil
than sci.aquaria:
rec.aquarium YES3 (YES^3, 3 YES, YES YES YES, or whatever)
rec.aquaria YES4
rec.fish YES
comp.society.aquaria NO
sci.aquaria NO 5
And so on. The idea is that the voters can precisely express how
happy they'd be with each name.
B. What do people think of the moderation idea? For example:
rec.humor.funny (mod Brad) YES
rec.humor.funny (unmod) NO
rec.humor.stupid (mod Shmoe) NO
rec.humor.stupid (unmod) NO
C. There should be some way to deal with idiots who submit a hundred
different names for a group, and shout ``illegal vote!'' if the
vote taker ignores them. Will this be a problem? Also, is three days
long enough to make sure that write-in names get in?
D. I don't think wildcards are worth the fuss: it doesn't take that long
to write ten YESs or NOs, and the main argument for wildcards---to
support write-ins that you haven't heard of yet---is moot. Do people
agree that we don't need wildcard votes?
E. In case the rules change from, e.g., margin to percentage, this
system stays intact.
F. Should there be a way to vote, e.g., with all the YESs having weights
under 1? How often are people only slightly satisfied with any of
the names---but satisfied enough to say YES? Does that even make
sense?
F. Is this simple enough for the typical novice voter to understand?
In a few weeks, if all goes well, somebody should post a call for votes
on this issue, with the explicit reminder that the votes are for
information only. Of course, this isn't really a new group issue, and
the guidelines don't really apply, so after we get results we'll have to
sit back and think about what they mean. (What a concept.)
By the way, let's keep this discussion in news.groups, not news.admin.
---Dan Bernstein, brnstnd@acf10.nyu.edu, bernstei@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu