brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (06/01/89)
Some people have thought of abolishing No votes. A good question to ask is, "what have No votes done?" The most No votes I ever saw was for tcp.eniac, and it still got more than 100 more yes votes. Has anybody kept records of surveys over the ages? I can only recall perhaps one or two times that a vote lost by getting more than 100 yes votes, but enough no votes to cancel down below 100 again. Most votes seem to get from 2-3 No votes. The really flame infested votes get from 30 to 40 except in rare cases. Even in those cases it's pretty common to see something like 130 yes, 20 no. In fact it's a rare survey that gets more than 150 Yes votes it seems. (This was caused in part by the fact that the vote-taker, if he/she saw that the vote was not getting enough yes votes half way through, would issue an urgent plea for more votes. If the vote already had 130 by the 1 or 2 week period, the vote taker would not issue such a plea, being tired of getting and counting votes.) But after all this heat and smoke, just how significant has the whole No vote process been? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (06/02/89)
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) said:
-Some people have thought of abolishing No votes. A good question
-to ask is, "what have No votes done?"
Votes of No got soc.personals killed.
-But after all this heat and smoke, just how significant has the whole
-No vote process been?
If even one ill-advised newsgroup is not created because enough people
vote No, then a good thing has been done.
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
"I'd like to remind you that when you're too well-entertained to move,
screaming is good exercise."
- World Entertainment Warwoods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/02/89)
In article <3411@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >But after all this heat and smoke, just how significant has the whole >No vote process been? First of all, just because there hasn't been any significant impact of NO votes thus far doesn't mean there won't ever be. And if that IS the case, why worry about them if they are so insignificant? One thing they do demonstrate (such as in the comp.women case) is when there is really a netwide controversy vs. when there are just 4 or 5 vocal people opposed to a group. In most cases, as has been pointed out several times, people who don't care about the topic under consideration aren't going to bother to vote NO. Even those who feel a group is not really needed won't in general bother to vote against it. The only times we have seen lots of NO votes is when there is some controversy over the name of the group. To me, what this shows is that naming issues ARE important and should not be trivialized. --Greg
edguer@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer) (06/02/89)
In article <3411@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > Some people have thought of abolishing No votes. A good question > to ask is, "what have No votes done?" Well, why not look in news.groups at article <11722@s.ms.uky.edu>. In article <11722@s.ms.uky.edu> tindle@ms.uky.edu (Ken Tindle) writes: > The voting period for soc.personals is over. The count is 167 YES, 103 NO. It would appear to me to have worked in this case. The people who wanted soc.personals are now free to: a) set up a mailing list and publish its existence: 1) in an article in news.groups. crossposted to relevant groups, which might include soc.singles, alt.sex, and others. 2) in the monthly list of mailing-lists. 3) in newspapers and magazines around the world. b) set up an alt.personals group. c) set up a soc.personals group on their local machine and try to connect directly to others who would like to distribute the list. They already have a list of 167 people whom they can contact. d) set up a soc.personals groups on their local machine that is a gateway to a distributed mailing list of other machines who have local soc.personals groups. Why are people so intent on removing the "rights" of other users to object. No one is trying to prevent others from exchanging information. I have listed four ways in which any two sites can start up their own "newsgroups" without resorting to peer review via a fair democratic process. The rules for the creation of a newsgroup are in my opinion very good. Please show how they are unfair, especially given all the other options available to a person. Aydin Edguer +1 216 368 6123 edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering, Crawford Hall, Case Western Reserve Univ.
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/02/89)
<3315@ncar.ucar.edu> <3411@looking.on.ca>
Sender:
Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.
Keywords:
No votes are imortant. It give the net a veto on the creation of newsgroups.
Someone mentioned that they are not needed as 100 yes votes are needed to pass
a new group into being, so if you didn't want a group, just don't send a YES
vote.
It's more than just that. How would you like it if someone told you that
Quayle wants to be President? And you couldn't vote against him but you could
vote for him. And if he got over 100 votes he would be president. See the flaw?
There would probably always be at least 100 people to vote for him. Likewise
there may be 100 people who want a certain newsgroup, but 200 who don't want
it, for whatever reason. If the 'NO' voters can't express their opinions then
the 'YES' votes would win by default.
Just because in 90% of the cases the YES votes win anyway, does not mean that
the NO votes are superfluous. It just means that most people have agreed so
far.
The system we have now seems to work pretty well, let's not change it.
--
John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps
[not for RHF] | sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406
When everyone is out to get you, Paranoid is just good thinking. --Johnny Fevergdelong@cvman.prime.com (Gary Delong) (06/02/89)
In article <3411@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Some people have thought of abolishing No votes. A good question > to ask is, "what have No votes done?" > > The most No votes I ever saw was for tcp.eniac, and it still got more > than 100 more yes votes. > > Has anybody kept records of surveys over the ages? I can only recall perhaps > one or two times that a vote lost by getting more than 100 yes votes, but > enough no votes to cancel down below 100 again. [...deleted...] > Brad Templeton Well, the vote on rec.ham-radio.rules got more than 100 yes votes but failed due to no-votes. I don't have the exact vote still on hand, but it was around 115 to 26. I think the margin may have been less than that because I remember that if I would have added 5 or 6 user id's from the few thousand on our corporate net I could have faked it. But I followed the existing guidelines even though I was tempted. (pat self on back here) 8-) From what I've seen, you get a lot of no votes when you try to split a controversial topic out of a main stream group. Even though I have been a victim of "no votes", I still feel the guidelines work quite well. If you can't get 100 more yes votes than no votes there is normally something wrong with the proposal in the first place. As to what the problem might be, you can list all the reasons someone might object enough to a new group to vote against it as I can. I have even noted what I feel "might" have been ballot box stuffing by network administrators. (no, I'm not going to elaborate, but you can do a few domain sorts on some posted vote results youself and compare voters against posters) But, in the whole, the system seems to work pretty well most of the time. Why not just leave it alone? -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (06/03/89)
> > If even one ill-advised newsgroup is not created because enough people > vote No, then a good thing has been done. If even one well-advised newsgroup is not created because too many people vote No, then a bad thing has been done. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (06/05/89)
In article <736@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > > Someone mentioned that [No votes] are not needed as 100 yes votes are needed > ... > It's more than just that. How would you like it if someone told you that > Quayle wants to be President? And you couldn't vote against him but you could > vote for him. And if he got over 100 votes he would be president. See the > flaw? > I see the flaw in your analogy. If Quayle got to be president, we couldn't decline to accept the consequnces, at least not without going to jail for nonpayment of taxes, nonregistration for selective slavery, etc., or a second major war over secession. If Proposed Newsgroup X gets created, one's site can refuse to carry it, and one can unsubscribe to it, all without either prison sentences or Gettysburg II. Jeff Daiell Nothing in the above should be construed as *opposing* nonpayment of taxes, nonregistration for selective slavery, or Independence for any given member of The Union. -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (06/05/89)
In article <4389@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >> >> If even one ill-advised newsgroup is not created because enough people >> vote No, then a good thing has been done. > >If even one well-advised newsgroup is not created because too many >people vote No, then a bad thing has been done. This is PRECISELY the point! Neither Jeff nor I nor any other one person is entitled to define what is an "ill-advised" vs. "well-advised" newsgroup! That is why we have votes, and it is also why we need to have NO votes as well. It's the only semi-fair way to define what is "ill-advised". It has been pointed out numerous times that most proposals generate few NO votes. To me, this means that most proposals are not "ill-advised". Many "ill-advised" proposals never actually come to a vote, because it becomes obvious during the discussion (e.g., rec.pipes). But some people insist on pushing a proposal that many think is "ill-advised". I don't think that pure bullheadedness on the part of a small minority should be enough to get an ill-advised group created. The only way to prevent that from happening is to allow NO votes. --Greg
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Raymond Dunn) (06/10/89)
In article <4389@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> If even one ill-advised newsgroup is not created because enough people >> vote No, then a good thing has been done. > >If even one well-advised newsgroup is not created because too many >people vote No, then a bad thing has been done. Jeesh! That's exactly what YES and NO votes are for - to *determine* what is "ill-advised" and what is "well-advised"! -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!uunet!philmtl!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090