peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/24/89)
How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not be created. The number 100, by the way, is likely to find itself obsolete within a couple of years. The guidelines should address this. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/24/89)
In article <3549@ficc.uu.net>, Peter da Silva writes: > How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless > of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not > be created. Since when does high opposition = lack of merit, or lack of validity? At the risk of being repetitious, those that dislike a newsgroup can decline to carry it, so why let them spoil things for those that want it -- especially if they're significantly outvoted (e.g., if a vote went 235-104)? Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/24/89)
In article <3550@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > Since when does high opposition = lack of merit, or lack of validity? High opposition implies that the group has a high likelihood of becoming a flame-fest. It may be meritorious, valid, and impeccably reasoned... but if that many people oppose it it's not going to be useful. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/25/89)
>How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless >of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not >be created. No, because it's too easy to build up power blocks to beat any arbitrary number. The idea is not to see if someone can build up a special interest group of a given size, but whether there is enough interest to warrant the group (and not enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea). In another (long) message, I proposed an alternative message. For those that don't want to wade through that one, I'll summarize: o Any vote that has fewer than 150 valid votes fails for lack of interest. o A vote requires 67% of all valid votes for the creation or deletion of a group (i.e., a two-thirds majority must agree to create the group or a 2/3 majority must agree to delete it. In either case, the bias is towards the standard quo). o If the number of 'spoiled' or provably missing votes is > 1% of the total voting *or* can be shown to change the final verdict, the vote must retaken and administered by an agreed upon neutral third party. The rationalization is this: numbers don't mean anything, especially considering the growth of the net. So we go by majority rule. I've chosen 67% instead of 50%+1 because group creation/deletion should have a strong backing from the readers, not just a basic majority. And, yes, I'm suggesting that group deletion take the same structure as creation -- except that those *for* deletion have to show the 2/3 majority. The idea is to stabilize on the way things are unless there's a good reason to change it. Also, if thre's a controversy on the voting -- incorrectly tallied, too many thrown out or spoiled, too many that simply didn't get to the voting administrator, the vote should go to a neutral party -- arbitration, sort of. This person would take the vote again, and validate the results, which will be binding. This should reduce some of the "you threw out all the votes you didn't agree with" garbage.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/25/89)
>High opposition implies that the group has a high likelihood of becoming >a flame-fest. It may be meritorious, valid, and impeccably reasoned... but >if that many people oppose it it's not going to be useful. I don't think that follows at all. Comp.unix.aux had a high number of no votes, and probably wouldn't have carried under your suggestion, but it's been useful, quiet and not a flamefest in any way, shape or form.
hassell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Christopher Hassell) (03/26/89)
In article <27812@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
#>How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless
#>of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not
#>be created.
#No, because it's too easy to build up power blocks to beat any arbitrary
#number. The idea is not to see if someone can build up a special interest
#group of a given size, but whether there is enough interest to warrant the
#group (and not enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea).
Power blocks or none, there is a problem with having truly flamey setups
possible. There can be two types of opposed groups at times, flame-sinks
<for the flame-lovers out there to oppose>, and flame-sources <which include
those that are just little hate-holes>. Other types such as association-hate
producers (if X didn't want Y on the net .. just because) should not carry
weight, that is true. There aren't really that many votes against unpopular
new groups so that shouldn't be an issue. No's should still be allowed,
ESPECIALLY if there is no mid-vote reporting <no way to effectively
rally-for-a-result>. I'm not exactly certain about No-fests. I would rather
apply the rules I made up, below.
Also on the arbitrary "100":
There has been a continuous amount of discussion about the "100" number. That
is truly a good question to apply things to. Possibly there should be a
redetermination of certain "levels" of specialization of groups. Since
sites already screen some that don't have broad support, this might already be
enforced, though. I say that the "arbitrary number" should be as low as is
necessary to allow the maximum level of specialization the net tolerates at any
time. Allowing ANY group onto the net should occur only if those most robust
sites can take it. Their capacity has expanded significantly and does as
Usenet gets bigger so the number "100" might still be adequate to give the best
means of communication. It might need changing from time to time, but don't
ask me how <take a vote????? :->
#In another (long) message, I proposed an alternative message. For those that
#don't want to wade through that one, I'll summarize:
#o Any vote that has fewer than 150 valid votes fails for lack of interest.
The number might be arguable, but it still seems valid to cull some
mailing-list fodder away.
#o A vote requires 67% of all valid votes for the creation or deletion of
# a group (i.e., a two-thirds majority must agree to create the group or a
# 2/3 majority must agree to delete it. In either case, the bias is towards
# the standard quo).
That is the right idea for retention of a group, but possibly the wrong
application of a "fix", w/regard to rmgrouping. More later.
#o If the number of 'spoiled' or provably missing votes is > 1% of the total
# voting *or* can be shown to change the final verdict, the vote must retaken
# and administered by an agreed upon neutral third party.
Definately. Good thing to note on this very unmonitored practice.
[ good ideas about having percentages as determinants of success in voting ]
Most do pass with low negative votes. That should work.
#suggesting that group deletion take the same structure as creation -- except
#that those *for* deletion have to show the 2/3 majority.
[ good stuff deleted about making votes and voters responsible ]
My suggestion is that the above "reasons" for deletion ought to be taken into
account. Groups should ** not ** be deleted because of flame-throwing. The
flame-throwing should be edited out. I believe that the best application is to
remove groups ONLY for inactivity. If a group has low volume it should
DEFINATELY ALSO ** have a group to retreat to **. That is in the
** essential ** purpose of Usenet and it is just the reverse of most creations
of groups. This would be the most efficient manner of handling rising and
falling interest in a subject. Rmgrouping is not the same as housecleaning!!!
The other type of deletion-reason is that of FLAMES. Constant and unbridled,
personal and useless, Flames are the joy of some and the bane of others. I
believe that what should be done is basically this:
- General calls of content-change : a group is running a flame-fest started
from within the subject's content and continued with more and more
tangential argument from the normal level of discussion.
After this there could be
- Call for Moderation: if appropriate in that the group's charter does NOT
even inherently ALLOW those flames and they are irrelevant to normal
discussion, as well as disruptive.
- Call for Moderation Change: this is only appropriate if there is blatant
disregard for Opposing viewpoints within the chartered subject or if
the selectivity of the moderator stirs up irrelevant issues more than
the prime ones. Non-existence of a group is not valid as an opposing
viewpoint-goal. Changing of a group might be one.
If these are inherently inadequate upon discussing their implementation then
- Change of Charter: this is reserved for areas where the flames are
relevant and allowed within the charter, and still conflict with the
ideal purpose of the group wished by most.
- Split of Charter: this is the last resort of a flaming group that has
spread too far and continues. This basically produces a group BY
ITSELF for -=*** BOTH ***=- sides of the argument to be exiled to.
The initial group can also apply the above procedure to lock them out.
This might actually produce some good and meaningful argument
if it is tapped first-off. From here irresolvable differences might
finally be agreed upon and issues cooled off a bit.
Now, basically these should catch all problems. Charter-changes should result
in less repeats and Moderation should squelch any fruitless problems. If the
flame-groups <with charter and all> become inactive enough to be dropped then
any second bouts will be required to restart it or be quiet.
I think that the previous methods of getting actions enacted are sufficient for
this list of actions.
#The idea is to stabilize on the way things are unless there's a good reason
#to change it.
Inertia, always inertia is used for this stuff. Oy vey, it makes sense.
How 'bout them apples? Comments...FLAMES even?
### C>H> ###peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/26/89)
I said, but the attribution was lost: > >How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless > >of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not > >be created. In article <27812@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > No, because it's too easy to build up power blocks to beat any arbitrary > number. That hasn't been the experience in the past. Surely it would be easy enough to drum up the 20 or 30 votes needed to kill some of the recent votes if that was the case. > The idea is not to see if someone can build up a special interest > group of a given size, but whether there is enough interest to warrant the > group (and not enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea). If someone can summon up 100 people to vote against a group, there is enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. ANY group that has any great amount of controversy is probably going to ba a bad net.partner anyway. > o Any vote that has fewer than 150 valid votes fails for lack of interest. Like comp.unix.i386? It wasn't flamed about enough to get the talk.bizzare folks involved, I guess. It's certainly proving its usefulness. You need to allow for relatively non-controversial votes on needed groups. > o A vote requires 67% of all valid votes... Even with 400 for and 200 against? I submit that such a group would be a flame-fest before long. > o If the number of 'spoiled' or provably missing votes is > 1% of the total.. You trust the mailers that much? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/26/89)
In article <3566@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > If someone can summon up 100 people to vote against a group, there is enough > anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. ANY group that has any great amount > of controversy is probably going to ba a bad net.partner anyway. > > > > o A vote requires 67% of all valid votes... > > Even with 400 for and 200 against? I submit that such a group would be a > flame-fest before long. Peter, my intuition would be that nay-sayers would just unsubscribe, but you've been on the network longer than I have -- so: what has the experience been? Do those that vote no stay around to disparage the yes-voters, or just delete the group from their 'portfolios'? If the latter, then a high no vote is no problem. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell P. S. If good manners in this medium = netiquette, would bad manners be grossiquette? -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Dave Compton) (03/27/89)
In article <3549@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: :How about using the rule of 100: any vote with over 100 NO votes, regardless :of the number of YES votes, obviously has a lot of opposition and should not :be created. : :The number 100, by the way, is likely to find itself obsolete within a couple :of years. The guidelines should address this. Should we even care about the number of no votes. If there are enough yes votes, why spoil someone elses party. dave -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu | These are only my opinions, | | rutgers!iuvax!silver!compton@iuvax | but I'm an opinionated person! | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/27/89)
In article <3533@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Dave Compton) writes: > Should we even care about the number of no votes. If there > are enough yes votes, why spoil someone elses party. Because the namespace of the net is not an unlimited resource. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
" Maynard) (03/28/89)
In article <3572@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <3533@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>, compton@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Dave Compton) writes: >> Should we even care about the number of no votes. If there >> are enough yes votes, why spoil someone elses party. >Because the namespace of the net is not an unlimited resource. Why not? There have been, historically, two arguments raised in support of such a statement: that there are software limitations, and that users would get confused. To the software limitations, I think Larry Wall said it best, in the BUGS section of the documentation for rn (file rn.1): "There should be no fixed limit on the number of newsgroups." As for the user confusion argument, I still feel that we're seeing much more confusion for users not knowing where in a complex namespace to post something that fits no existing category well. The solution is not to heighten that confusion by limiting new group creation, but to ease the creation of groups, since each new group will lessen that confusion factor for a subject. After all, how often have you seen a message, cross-posted to 17 newsgroups, starting off with, "I don't know where this goes, so I'm posting it here..."? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!texbell! | "Less great!" "Tastes filling!"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/29/89)
I said that the namespace of the net is not an unlimited resource. In article <2556@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > To the software limitations, I think Larry Wall said it best, in the > BUGS section of the documentation for rn (file rn.1): > "There should be no fixed limit on the number of newsgroups." There should be no fixed limit on personal wealth. Where is my Ferrari? > After all, how often have you seen a message, > cross-posted to 17 newsgroups, starting off with, "I don't know where > this goes, so I'm posting it here..."? Generally because there are too many groups already out there that seem appropriate. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (03/30/89)
In article <3592@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: :I said that the namespace of the net is not an unlimited resource. : :In article <2556@splut.UUCP>, jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: :> To the software limitations, I think Larry Wall said it best, in the :> BUGS section of the documentation for rn (file rn.1): :> "There should be no fixed limit on the number of newsgroups." : :There should be no fixed limit on personal wealth. Where is my Ferrari? How many newsgroups can you handle, Peter, and how many do you now carry ? ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------