dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (10/27/90)
(On Dec. 5, 1989, I posted the final results on the vote for creation of
comp.groupware and comp.groupware.f and indicated the groups were created.
Since I did not have the ability to issue newgroup control commands myself, I
followed the instructions in the Guidelines and sent a request to the address
newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu. I later asked the staff at my site and the other vote
collectors to create the groups. Weeks elapsed before comp.groupware was
actually created. The following exchanges occurred during this period. They
illustrate what I was trying to do with the new groups, and also the social
relations governing new group creation that are normally hidden from the view
of the typical user. <All messages remain copyrighted by their authors. They are published here because they are part of the "official" business of Usenet.>)
---------------------------------------------------------
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
Groupware newsgroups
Comp.groupware(.f) won the sci.groupware(.f) vote and succeeded
according to the Guidelines. Results have been posted to news.groups.
Please create the newsgroups:
comp.groupware
comp.groupware.f
----------------------------------------------------------
From lear@NET.BIO.NET Mon Dec 11 02:07:42 1989
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1989 17:07:14 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET>
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: lear@NET.BIO.NET
Usmail: 700 East El Camino Real, Mtn View, California 94040
Phone: (415) 962-7323
Subject: Re: Groupware newsgroups
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:27:56 +0100
What does the f mean in comp.groupware.f? Could we expand it without
ruffling too many feathers?
Eliot
------------------------------------------------------------
From lear@NET.BIO.NET Mon Dec 11 02:08:58 1989
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1989 17:08:22 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET>
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: lear@NET.BIO.NET, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
Usmail: 700 East El Camino Real, Mtn View, California 94040
Phone: (415) 962-7323
Subject: Re: Groupware newsgroups
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:27:56 +0100
Hold the phone on this newgroup for just a bit. If we can expand
the ``f'' in comp.groupware.f without causing too many objections,
let's do it.
Eliot
----------------------------------------------------------
From spaf@cs.purdue.edu Mon Dec 11 02:10:14 1989
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Groupware newsgroups
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:27:56 +0100.
<8912102227.AA11366@freja.diku.dk>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:10:24 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
The point has been made (and I agree with it) that the vote and
discussion were for comp.groupware. At least, I don't recall there
being any discussion about the .f group. That's a poor name, and a
doubtful utility.
I'll create and list the groupware group, but not the .f group unless
some one can convince me that it had a legitimate vote of its own.
--spaf
----------------------------------------------------------
From spaf@cs.purdue.edu Mon Dec 11 05:59:35 1989
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Groupware newsgroups
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:27:56 +0100.
<8912102227.AA11366@freja.diku.dk>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:59:43 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
What is the topic of comp.groupware? I need a one-line description
for the list of groups.
--spaf
----------------------------------------------------------
From spaf@cs.purdue.edu Mon Dec 11 06:00:00 1989
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Groupware newsgroups
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 10 Dec 89 23:27:56 +0100.
<8912102227.AA11366@freja.diku.dk>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 00:00:28 EST
From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
Never mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
mail lear@NET.BIO.NET, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
comp.groupware (resend)
comp.groupware.f is the followups group for comp.groupware.
It could be changed to:
comp.groupware.followup
This follow the convention of:
eunet.general
eunet.followup
&
nordunet.general
nordunet.followup
If this convention had been followed for news.groups and
news.announce.newgroups, I think they would function much
better together.
------------------------------------------------------------
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu
comp.groupware.f(resend)
>From: Gene Spafford <spaf@cs.purdue.edu>
>The point has been made (and I agree with it) that the vote and
>discussion were for comp.groupware. At least, I don't recall there
>being any discussion about the .f group. That's a poor name, and a
>doubtful utility.
>
>I'll create and list the groupware group, but not the .f group unless
>some one can convince me that it had a legitimate vote of its own.
I have not seen anybody make the point that the vote was for just
comp.groupware.
There was discussion on this point that was reposted at least three times in
the groupware discussion summary. It was explained in the repeatedly posted
call for votes.
It would be silly for comp.groupware.f to have had a vote of its own since its
function is to work with comp.groupware. A separate vote would mean that the
followups group would be created a month or so after the original group and
then users would have to convert from placing followups in the main group to
the followups group. This would no doubt be a troublesome process, if it would
work at all.
If it had been suggested the STV choices would have been:
comp.groupware + comp.groupware.f
comp.groupware
sci.groupware + sci.groupware.f
sci.groupware
no
Considering the complaints of the vote instructions were too complicated, I
hardly consider that this would have been wise.
The function of the followups group will most likely be changed to be a
channel for machine to machine communication, it is not meant to be a
traditional discussion group. See my post "Mutual Moderation" in news.groups.
Of the 175 or so persons supporting creation of the group, only a one or two
opposed the followups group being created. I have no doubt that a vote on the
subject would win.
If the followups group is not created shortly, I will forward the call for
votes and the discussion summary for your inspection.
------------------------------------------------------------
From woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU Fri Dec 15 04:12:04 1989
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:30:09 MST
From: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
To: newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu, stodol@diku.dk
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
And as I pointed out to Mr. Stodolsky (and got roundly flamed for pointing
it out to the net as well), his proposal is clearly in violation of the
guidelines. Considering that, Gene would be quite within his rights not to
list the group at all (I'm not suggesting he do that, I'm just pointing out
that there has NEVER been anything agreed about conducting a vote for two
groups at once, nor even official use of the STV voting technique)
I support his decision to list just the one group.
--Greg
--------------------------------------------------------
From lear@NET.BIO.NET Fri Dec 15 03:59:09 1989
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1989 13:50:59 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET>
To: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Cc: lear@NET.BIO.NET, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu, stodol@diku.dk
Usmail: 700 East El Camino Real, Mtn View, California 94040
Phone: (415) 962-7323
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:30:09 MST
Again, Greg, guidelines are guidelines, not laws. Please let's not
get hung up on that one again. If the group was mentioned with
comp.groupware at the calls for discussion and vote, then there shouldn't
be a problem, guidelines or not. However, I too would like to see a
demand for the group, before we create it, especially if it was not discussed
or voted on.
Eliot
-----------------------------------------------------
From seindal@skinfaxe.diku.dk Fri Dec 15 04:16:00 1989
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: staff@freja.diku.dk
Subject: Re: comp.groupware
Slyrf: Sex, ducks, and rock'n roll
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 14 Dec 89 20:13:31 +0100.
<8912141913.AA24531@freja.diku.dk>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 20:18:08 +0100
From: Rene' Seindal <seindal@diku.dk>
>The newsgroups:
>comp.groupware
>comp.groupware.followup
>should be active at this time, but I cannot find them with nn.
>What is the problem?
It is that we do not have the authority to make them. We can only make local
newsgroups. You got the groups accepted. Now find out how you get them made.
It is not our job, it is yours.
Happy group creation.
Rene' Seindal (seindal@diku.dk)
-------------------------------------------------------
mail staff
Re: comp.groupware
>From: Rene' Seindal <seindal@diku.dk>
>
>
>>The newsgroups:
>
>>comp.groupware
>>comp.groupware.followup
>
>>should be active at this time, but I cannot find them with nn.
>
>>What is the problem?
>
>It is that we do not have the authority to make them.
From the current Guidelines on newsgroup creation:
==========
From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.groups,news.admin
Subject: How to Create a New Newsgroup (Updated: 6 Nov 1989)
Message-ID: <8544@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 89 00:40:50 GMT
Expires: 5 Feb 90 00:40:49 GMT
[...]
3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that
might
invalidate the vote, and if 100 more YES/create votes are received
than NO/don't create, a newgroup control message may be sent out.
If the 100 vote margin is not met, the group should not be created.
The newgroup message may be sent by the vote-taker (if able to do so)
or by the system administrator on the vote-taker's machine.
========
I had assumed that the system administrator received mail addressed to
"staff". If this is not so, please forward or let me know the correct address.
-------------------------------------------------------
From chuq@apple.com Fri Dec 15 04:47:19 1989
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 13:24:46 PST
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@apple.com>
To: newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu, stodol@diku.dk
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
Please note in all this that I didn't follow the groupware vote, so my
comments are coming from completely outside the discussion.
>It would be silly for comp.groupware.f to have had a vote of its own since
its
>function is to work with comp.groupware.
True, but traditionally, and there are a number of precedents, a call for
votes is on a single group, not on multiple groups. On two occasions in
votes I've been involved, I tried to suggest creating multiple groups and
was told that wasn't how things were done (the groups involved were
comp.sys.mac.hypercard and comp.sys.mac.programmer (which was created later
under a separate vote) adn comp.sys.mac.hardware and
comp.sys.mac.{microsoft,applications} (the latter group not yet voted on).
The reason for this is that you only create the groups you need. In the case
of both these votes, it was felt a split was needed to get volume under
control, but everyone felt it was better to create it a group at a time and
see how the volume ended up.
I think the same general principle applies here for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is that we don't know if a followup group is really
needed yet. Get comp.groupware up and see how it works. If you need the
group, then you can create it later.
Problem #2: comp.groupware.f is a name that goes against general naming
standards. When a sub-groups is created for this purpose, it normally is a
foo.bar.d group (rec.humor.d, comp.sources.d) not foo.bar.f. I'd like to see
the naming standards (such as they are these days) upheld unless there's a
*really* good reason to deviate.
Problem #3: with no enforcement mechanism to put followups in the .f group,
I wonder at how it'll really work in reality. Generally, we've found it's
really hard to 'move' discussions elsewhere and there'd be a large amount of
user training needed to get them to post to the alternate group rather than
mindlessly doing a followup, and user training on USENET has been a mixed
bag at best.
>If the followups group is not created shortly, I will forward the call for
>votes and the discussion summary for your inspection.
I suggest you go with comp.groupware and see how things are three months
from now. Right now, I don't think we can make an intelligent decision on
whether a followup group is necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,allbery@uunet.UU.NET,uunet.uu.net:bill@twwells.com
spaf@cs.purdue.edu Mon Dec 11 02:10:14 1989 writes:
>I'll create and list the groupware group, but not the .f group unless
This either didn't work or it didn't get here.
Can anybody post to comp.groupware?
------------------------------------------------------
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,allbery@uunet.UU.NET,uunet.uu.net:bill@twwells.com
Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU Fri Dec 15 04:12:04 1989 writes:
> And as I pointed out to Mr. Stodolsky (and got roundly flamed for pointing
>it out to the net as well), his proposal is clearly in violation of the
>guidelines.
What was pointed out to me was that there must be discussion before a vote. If
the original call for votes had been read before sending it back to me, it
would have been noticed that the discussion had occurred earlier and voting
had been delayed by arrangement for multiple vote counters, etc.
After posting the original call for votes without any inclusions, the second
call included a line stating that the call was in violation of the Guidelines,
that was in addition to my own statement that the call was in violation. This
was crossposted to half a dozen groups not just n.a.ng. The second call for
votes was not returned nor was I given any notice that an insertion would be
made. There is nothing in the charter for n.a.ng that permits such insertions
and it certainly is a matter of common courtesy to consult with an author
before doing this. There had been an earlier exchange of mail concerning the
charter of n.a.ng after my initial call was returned:
===========enclosed letter=================
N.A.NG charter?
>>>but I'll have to include a statement that it is in violation of accepted
guidelines.
>> I know of no statement in the guidelines that authorizes you to do this,
> It isn't part of the guidelines, but rather the n.a.ng charter.
I read the charter and I see nothing like this in it.
===============end of enclosed letter=======================
The failure to post that charter, which I would say shows poor judgement, was
most likely the reason for flames. I do not recall sending any flames, unless
my request that inserting remarks in the call cease, counts as a flame:
===========enclosed letter=================
N.A.NG post
I am sending the final CfV for sci.groupware.
Please do not modify it in any way.
I know it is in violation of the Guidelines.
===============end of enclosed letter=======================
To use one's position as moderator to insert comments in an other person's
post is an abuse of that role, IMHO. Failure to apply whatever rules are
considered valid consistently is not defensible, it shows an inability to deal
with the role effectively. Originally, I was planning to make a comparison
between the results of the first and second call for votes, to see if the
trend was different. Since the post was changed the second time, this became
impossible.
>that there has NEVER been anything agreed about conducting a vote for two
>groups at once, nor even official use of the STV voting technique)
This is certainly correct, and that is why the Guidelines don't apply here.
They don't deal (effectively) with certain situations, like the simultaneous
creation of related groups, creation of new hierarchies (really just a way of
creating multiple groups), the failure to reach consensus on a name, or even
modification to the Guidelines themselves. Since there is no official way to
decide upon what voting technique is valid, the fact that the vote was STV or
that two groups were included in one vote is hardly relevant. This comment
seems to me like saying that if a preliminary vote is conducted to select a
name, that it invalidates a Guidelines vote conducted to create the group,
because a consensus was not reached on the name before the vote.
(If this criticism seem a bit heavy, Greg, remember that old saying:
The higher you climb, the more your ass shows, and the more people want to
kick it :-)
Why don't we accept Weber's conclusion from the voting methods poll. The
current Guidelines can be fixed for the moment by the 2/3 rule, but a multiple
name, multiple vote collectors method is needed. Recall that the groupware
vote started before the *.aquaria debate. There has not been a single "vote
fraud" complaint in response to the groupware vote and the name,
comp.groupware, has been accepted without a single complaint. The groupware
vote demonstrated that these improvements were workable, before it became
painfully obvious to all, that something was needed.
If comp.groupware.followup is created immediately, we will hopefully have a
way of improving the signal-to-noise ratio on the net before a lot more good
people give up on Usenet because they don't have time to wade through the
oceans of crap to find a few gems worth reading. See the "Mutual Moderation"
posts for more on this.
=============posted to news.groups/admin=================
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes in Message-ID:
<62274@looking.on.ca>:
>At least from the postings, it seems that many people think that voting
>on group names is good solution, and that this does not need to be
>explained.
Voting is the worst solution, except for having no way to reach a fair
decision. Voting rules should encourage people to come to a consensus
decision, in which all important facts and points of view are satisfied.
However, reaching a consensus decision on Usenet is nearly impossible for two
reasons. With a very large number of participants, some of who act in an
irresponsible manner, a total consensus is never reached. Second, if people
agree with a point they typically don't post, "I agree". Let's face it, after
the first half dozen, this gets to be boring reading. So, given the current
communication structure on Usenet, that does little to discourage
irresponsible behavior and has no inherent "back channel" or review message
capabilities, a vote is normally necessary to reach a decision, even if a
consensus exits.
This second reason is why I ran the groupware vote STV. A number of people
posted or mailed the opinion that the name should be comp.groupware not
sci.groupware. Then I presented my arguments as to why it should be
sci.groupware and there was no rejoinder, actually hardly any comment at all.
So, either the critics were convinced or they did not read my arguments,
couldn't be bothered to respond, their mail/posts were lost, etc. Well, the
vote showed that the critics were not convinced (at least not most of them).
An ideal voting system should work like an ideal court system. If you know
what the decision is going to be, why waste the time to go through a complex
and resource consuming procedure. The key point is that the system is fair, so
you can not accomplish anything by using it that can not be accomplished by a
clear presentation and understanding of the facts.
Greg Wood believes that the current patch to the Guidelines (i. e., the 2/3
rule) will by its threat potential, force group champions to accept a proper
name. This will not work for two reasons. First, due to the lack of
appropriate feedback, which is typically combined with inexperience, group
champions often don't know what a proper name is. And they often don't know
various persons on the net well enough to distinguish between people trying to
help them, and those who just are opposed to the group or get their kicks by
taunting any "new kid on the block".
Second, a contest, which is even clearer when there is a 2/3 rule, is just
what will encourage certain people to try and "beat the system". That is, show
that they can WIN, regardless of what the contest is about. This kind of
environment also generates vote fraud and forgeries. Finally, people leave
Usenet, start their own hierarchies, or take other measures avoid stupid
stuff. There is enough recent experience on the net to illustrate this.
If single transferrable voting procedures are available, it will be clearer
that forcing a decision to a vote is just a waste of time. This, hopefully,
will encourage less people to try to delay or defeat an obvious conclusion. A
higher level of consensus is certainly needed on Usenet at this time.
=============================================================
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,allbery@uunet.UU.NET,uunet.uu.net:bill@twwells.com
Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@apple.com> writes:
>Problem #3: with no enforcement mechanism to put followups in the .f group,
>I wonder at how it'll really work in reality. Generally, we've found it's
============= posted to news.groups=================
Chip Salzenberg writes in <257E830A.23877@ateng.com>
>The idea of a followup group doesn't work unless the original group is
>moderated; otherwise people don't use the followup group.
eunet.general
eunet.followup
&
nordunet.general
nordunet.followup
Both of these pairs are unmoderated. They work fine and people use the
followup groups. If a followup is posted to comp.groupware it will be either a
mistake or a flame. Readers can choose whether they want to look at these. In
extreme cases the kill file will be useful, and if someone wants to hack a few
:-) lines of code, we can even have automatically generated kill notices
sent to authors who violate protocol.
>See alt.sources
>for an example. Periodic flaming results from non-source articles in
>alt.sources.
This is a question of the content of a post. It is not the same as the
question of whether the post is a followup. It is not necessary to read a post
to see that it is a followup. Posts that are not read will not generate
flames.
============= end of enclosure=====================
>Right now, I don't think we can make an intelligent decision on
>whether a followup group is necessary.
Everyone had a chance to participate in discussion and vote on this issue. The
idea that a few people should second guess a vote undermines the validity of
the voting process.
----------------------------------------------------------
From chuq@apple.com Mon Dec 18 00:21:05 1989
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 15:20:47 PST
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@apple.com>
To: stodol@diku.dk
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
I should point out that USENET is neither eunet nor nodunet.
I should also point out that the people in charge of overseeing the guidelines
are *supposed* to second guess a vote, especially when the guidelines haven't
been followed (as in this case). Otherwise, why bother having guidelines?
----------------------------------------------------------
From lear@NET.BIO.NET Mon Dec 18 01:41:33 1989
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1989 16:41:03 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET>
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: lear@NET.BIO.NET
Usmail: 700 East El Camino Real, Mtn View, California 94040
Phone: (415) 962-7323
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 17 Dec 89 23:25:02 +0100
Could you send me a copy of the final vote tally?
Thx,
Eliot
----------------------------------------------------------
From lear@NET.BIO.NET Mon Dec 18 02:10:10 1989
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1989 17:09:11 PST
From: Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET>
To: David Stodolsky <stodol@diku.dk>
Cc: lear@NET.BIO.NET, allbery@uunet.uu.net, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,
uunet.uu.net.bill@twwells.com
Usmail: 700 East El Camino Real, Mtn View, California 94040
Phone: (415) 962-7323
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 17 Dec 89 23:24:35 +0100
As I have pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN, the guidelines are just that -
suggested guidelines which a certain population of system
administrators use to determine which groups they will keep, and which
groups they will pass up.
There is never a guarantee that you will end up with a newgroup from
someone other than yourself, in any event. And if you newgroup the
group, there is no guarantee that others will carry it. There is
never any guarantee that ANY moderator out there won't whack your
message. Greg Woods has posted the charter to n.a.ng numerous times,
where he said that he would add little blurbs to messages he believed
to be inappropriate. It is tradionally the moderator's (or EDITor's)
prerogative to EDIT messages as he deems appropriate.
Finally, it has been pointed out that your tone also has not helped
matters. The people on this list put an inordinate amount of time
into USENET, so that there is at least some minimal form of
organization. They do not appreciate being flamed, howled, and
hooted, just because they don't move at a pace to your liking.
Eliot
----------------------------------------------------------
From chuq@apple.com Mon Dec 18 05:40:37 1989
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 20:11:21 PST
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@apple.com>
To: lear@NET.BIO.NET, stodol@diku.dk
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
Cc: allbery@uunet.uu.net, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,
uunet.uu.net.bill@twwells.com
Don't tell anyone I said this, but I've been known to stonewall things
for people who make my life miserable. There's no sense going out of my
way for idiots who don't appreciate it, you know.,
Of course, that doesn't apply to anyone in this discussion....
----------------------------------------------------------
From chuq@apple.com Mon Dec 18 17:56:32 1989
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 08:52:53 PST
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuq@apple.com>
To: allbery@uunet.UU.NET, newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu, stodol@diku.dk,
uunet.uu.net.bill@twwells.com
Subject: Re: comp.groupware.f(resend)
>What was pointed out to me was that there must be discussion before a vote.
If I might ask a simple question -- if the guidelines have been around, and
if they'd been published on a regular basis during that time, for well over
a year (or has it been two? Time flies when you're having fun), why is it
you didn't read them and find out the rules for yourself?
It's not like they're this big secret, David. And it's not like we spring
them upon unsuspecting people for jollies. There's this basic expectation
that people will (1) learn the rules before opening their mouths, and (2)
ask for help if they can't figure it out for themselves. The more I see
about groupware stuff, the more I begin to wonder.
Why are you the only one who seemed unable to read and follow the guidelines
in all this time? Except for Richard Sexton, who understood the guidelines
better than any of us, in retrospect -- he's a walking loophole.
You didn't read the rules, you didn't ask for advice, and now you're
complaining because we didn't tell you to read the rules in the first place?
Excuse me, guidelines. Either way, much more stupid people than you have
followed them without a problem, why didn't you? They aren't difficult.
>To use one's position as moderator to insert comments in an other person's
>post is an abuse of that role, IMHO.
To exercise the responsibility given to the moderator is part of the
moderator's duty. It becomes an abuse of the role *only* when it falls
against what you want. This is crap.
>This is certainly correct, and that is why the Guidelines don't apply here.
>They don't deal (effectively) with certain situations, like the simultaneous
>creation of related groups,
The precedents in USENET are simple. there are no simultaneous creation of
groups, and you don't create multiple groups with a single vote. I covered
that in a previous mailing, so I won't repeat myself.
>(If this criticism seem a bit heavy, Greg, remember that old saying:
>The higher you climb, the more your ass shows, and the more people want to
>kick it :-)
And the more likely you'll find an idiot who gets his jollies trying to make
life miserable for those who try to make life better.
I'm backing Greg on this one. The groupware vote was far beyond the
standards of the guidelines, and I see no indication that the people
involved are interested in anything except getting their own way. And after
Sexton, I'm not at all interested in being patient with idiots that think
they can sway my opinion by being obnoxious.
As newgroup czar, I'd be willing to create comp.groupware. I think the vote
and procedure were close enough to what's proper that this can be justified.
Under no circumstances can I justify comp.groupware.f, for reasons I've
discussed in previous mailings, and because I won't support multiple group
creations under a single vote.
I suggest, David, you take one of three positions:
o take comp.groupware and drop the issue. In three-six months, an addition
of comp.groupware.{something} can be handled as a separate issue. Not
before, since we need to see if the group needs a sub-group.
o continue to argue, badger and fight over it. To do so, however, will
mean that nothing will get sent out by me until the fight is over, so
you take the chance of having the entire group structure delayed
signficantly.
o decide we're all assholes and ignore us completely, sending out your own
newgroups and seeing if you can make the groups work without the sanction
of the naming-space-cabal.
I, for one, am tired of watching people decide they can use or ignore the
guidelines, depending on what's to their advantage. They should either be
enforced, fixed or thrown out. Until the net decides to do either of the
latter, I'm going to enforce them to the best of my ability.
"comp.groupware" is close enough that it can be created under the
guidelines. Tossing in "comp.groupware.f" however, pushes the request into
unacceptability.
Now I'm going to stop arguing. You're welcome to make whatever choice you
want, but I'm not wasting my time discussing subjects with people who don't
seem to be interested in listening.
chuq (newgroup czar)
----------------------------------------------------------
mail lear@NET.BIO.NET
comp.groupware
Eliot Lear <lear@NET.BIO.NET> writes:
>Greg Woods has posted the charter to n.a.ng numerous times,
Can you send me a copy? Nothing I have seen authorizes doing anything but
returning a post that unknowingly violates the guidelines. I see the
moderation of n.a.ng as special role because of its key position in the
development of Usenet. Recall that I exchanged email with Greg on the specific
question of modifying posts. At the conclusion of that exchange I was under
the impression that we agreed that this was not supported by the n.a.ng
charter.
>They do not appreciate being flamed, howled, and
>hooted, just because they don't move at a pace to your liking.
I have been stating the facts as I see them. Please point out what you
consider to be a flame.
The waiting period for the comp.groupware vote ended on Dec. 5th. Is there
some time consuming and complex procedure involved in sending a newgroup? I
was under the impression it just took a few minutes.
Have people gotten the impression that I am opposed to the creation of
comp.groupware by itself? This is not true. I am ready to run an independent
vote for the followup group if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------
mail newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu,allbery@uunet.UU.NET,bill%twwells.com@uunet.uu.net
comp.groupware
If anyone feels they have been flamed, please accept my humble apology.
This was certainly not my intention.
----------------------------------------------------------
(Eliot Lear created comp.groupware at this point. We continued our discussion
by mail. I wanted to post to news.groups and news.admin, because I felt that
the points were of general interest. He refused because he didn't wish to
become involved in a "flame war". It seemed to me, that this was a perfect
illustration of why an improved feedback arrangement was needed on Usenet. I
never felt I got this point across.)
--
David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38
Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50
Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk
Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/27/90)
Isn't it a little late for this? And, yes, the moderator of any group has the right to include editorial comment in any message posted to the group. This is common knowledge, and accepted practice. If you were creating a eunet group, you would follow eunet procedures. In the main groups the procedure is to use ".d" for followups, which was pointed out when it became clear what you were doing. Would it have been so hard to follow this clear precedent? As for the complexity of the vote... it has clearly been shown that this is *not* a serious problem. There have been several quite complex votes with very few complaints. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) (10/29/90)
This idea of having a comp.groupware.f companion group seems
especially strange to me as one of the few examples cited to justify
this, eunet.{general,followup} was just recently removed by voting
within the eunet community, and replaced by eunet.misc, due to the
complexity and inefficiency of having a discussion go from one group
to the other.
--
Karl Tombre - INRIA Lorraine / CRIN
EMAIL : tombre@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, Francemcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) (11/01/90)
In the referenced article, dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) writes: > > (On Dec. 5, 1989, I posted the final results on the vote for creation of > comp.groupware and comp.groupware.f and indicated the groups were created. > Since I did not have the ability to issue newgroup control commands myself, I > followed the instructions in the Guidelines and sent a request to the address > newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu. I later asked the staff at my site and the other vote > collectors to create the groups. Weeks elapsed before comp.groupware was > actually created. The following exchanges occurred during this period. They > illustrate what I was trying to do with the new groups, and also the social > relations governing new group creation that are normally hidden from the view > of the typical user. <All messages remain copyrighted by their authors. > They are published here because they are part of the "official" business > of Usenet.>) > [750 lines of correspondence deleted.] Precisely what is your point, Mr. Stodolsky? The correspondence establishes the following: that the group of experienced Usenet administrators who were on the newgroup mailing list did not believe that the Guidelines provided for a simultaneous creation of a second group (comp.groupware.f); that it would be unwise, based on precedent and custom, to create such a group (particularly given its unusual name); that comp.groupware itself was created, and in the ten months since the creation of comp.groupware it has had a very low volume of articles (336 at this site). In the time since December there has been no outcry demanding the creation of comp.groupware.f nor has anyone else successfully proposed such an unusual group structure for another topic. What is the purpose of bringing this all up 10 months later? [Followups to news.groups, please.] -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (11/04/90)
tombre@crin.fr (Karl Tombre) in <TOMBRE.90Oct29111503@weissenburger.crin.fr> writes: >This idea of having a comp.groupware.f companion group seems >especially strange to me as one of the few examples cited to justify >this, eunet.{general,followup} was just recently removed by voting Remember, the groupware proposal was written well over a year ago. Didn't my posts on "mutual moderation", "self-moderation" and the summary of my paper "Consensus Journals:.." that show my current thinking on these problems reach your site? -- David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01