dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (09/13/89)
Well, the ``Why vote "no"?'' thread on news.groups exceeded my
expectations. I expected some hot discussion but no substantiation
for the need for NO votes. As a result of several thoughtful
follow-ups, I've changed my tune. I no longer think ignoring NO votes
will fix the new group creation guidelines. This article contains my
attempt at a better new group creation procedure.
I thought about listing the various complaints with the current
procedures, but we're all already familiar with them so I won't bore
you. Instead, I'll present a first-cut at new procedures, discuss
some of the advantages over the current procedures, and ask for your
comments.
First, we have to have some common idea of what the procedures are
intended to accomplish. Ideally, before a new group is created we'd
like to know that there is:
1) a real need for the group
2) consensus on the charter (purpose) and name of the group by
its participants
3) consensus on the demonstration of 1 and the achievement of
2 by all.
PROPOSED PROCEDURES
1. An interested party, called the initiator, posts a Trial Newsgroup
Announcement to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or
mailing lists related to the proposed topic. Similar to the current
Call for Discussion in content, its purpose is to inform potential
participants of the formation of a trial newsgroup.
A trial group exists within the misc group under the top-level
category the initiator feels is appropriate for the topic. For
example, the trial group for a technical/scientific agriculture group
tentatively named sci.agriculture would be in sci.misc. The trial
newsgroup has two purposes: discussion on topics as proposed in the
charter and metadiscussion on the charter, name, and desirability of
the new group.
The Trial Newsgroup Announcement contains a first-cut name and charter
for the proposed group, but both will be revised as necessary during
the trial period. Articles posted to the trial group should contain a
subject line of the form:
Subject: subject of message [trial.group.name]
This will distinguish traffic on the trial group from the normal
traffic of the misc group. This distinction will allow the use of
KILL files to exclude trial group traffic for nonparticipants and
exclusion of non-trial-group traffic for participants.
Guidelines should be developed for the formation of trial groups to
prevent a proliferation of frivolous trial groups. E.g., a trial
group may be in order when the volume of traffic on an existing group
is high and there are obvious, natural subdivisions such as "hardware"
and "software" in a comp.sys.foo group.
2. Since it's critical for establishing consensus that *all* issues
raised during the trial period be addressed, a summary of the issues
will be posted by the initiator after at least a one month trial
period. For one week, users will be able to review the issues and
post any omissions. The initiator will then post a Metadiscussion
Survey which requests all trial newsgroup participants to vote on each
issue. After two weeks for the collection of responses the results
are tallied. A simple majority, greater than half of all responses,
establishes consensus. Unresolved issues, if any, are debated until
the initiator feels an Issue Survey is warranted. Issue Surveys are
like Metadiscussion Surveys except they only concern one issue.
Mandatory issues for every Metadiscussion Survey include:
-the desirability of the new group
-the name and charter of the new group
-moderation status of the new group
3. Once all issues raised during the trial period have been resolved,
the initiator posts a Call for Approval for the proposed group to the
same newsgroups that the Trial Newsgroup Announcement was posted to.
Included in the CFA is the approved charter and name of the group, a
summary of the issues and resolutions, and a list of the trial group's
participants. Parallel to the current Call for Votes, the Call for
Approval presents evidence of the consensus of the participants on the
name and charter (via the summary of issues) and evidence of the need
for the group (via the list of participants). Users are requested to
either approve or disapprove of the creation of the proposed group.
Replies are collected for two weeks. A minimum of 100 total replies
and a 2/3 majority in favor should result in the acceptance of the
proposal and the creation of the new group.
ANALYSIS
1. Does it meet the needs? Recapping our original requirements:
1) [Demonstrating] a real need for the group
This is accomplished by the success of the trial group, or not
accomplished if it fails. If a simple majority of trial participants
don't agree it's a good idea, then it's not a good idea. If you only
get ten trial participants, you're not ready for your own group.
2) Consensus on the charter (purpose) and name of the group by
its participants
This is also accomplished during the trial period.
3) Consensus on the demonstration of 1 and the achievement of
2 by all.
This is accomplished by the Call for Approval.
2. What are the advantages over the current procedures?
-allows instant formation of a new group without actually
creating a new group
-requires consensus on all issues including name, charter, and
the need for the group by its participants
-allows and requires participants to demonstrate that they
have a viable group
-allows a new group to define its charter on-the-fly
-NO votes are retained, forestalling anarchy
DISCUSSION
So, what do you think? I'm sure there will be opinions on both sides,
and even if most people approve of the concept it will still require
some tweaking.
What's right with it? What's wrong? Speak your mind! Follow-up,
don't reply, so we can all hear what you have to say.
Note that follow-ups are directed to news.misc.
--
Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)jj) (09/14/89)
In article <120@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >PROPOSED PROCEDURES > >1. An interested party, called the initiator, posts a Trial Newsgroup > ... SOP >A trial group exists within the misc group under the top-level >category the initiator feels is appropriate for the topic. For So, what happens in the case (already shown by statistics) that the discussion is either already taking place, or is swamped by other articles in the ().misc group? I think either the pre-existance or swamping is likely for most groups. > Subject: subject of message [trial.group.name] > >This will distinguish traffic on the trial group from the normal >traffic of the misc group. This distinction will allow the use of >KILL files to exclude trial group traffic for nonparticipants and >exclusion of non-trial-group traffic for participants. This is a useless feature for many people and may newsreaders. It won't cut down the time it takes to look through all the article headers, for instance, or permit reading the "new group" information SEPARATED from lots of other stuf in the same ().misc group that may be interesting. The heart of this problem is the false dichotomy of "either you want a or b", when in fact you may want 'a' here and 'b' later, or vice versa. >prevent a proliferation of frivolous trial groups. E.g., a trial Define frivolous? Come on, we know what that will lead to. >2. Since it's critical for establishing consensus that *all* issues >raised during the trial period be addressed, a summary of the issues >will be posted by the initiator after at least a one month trial >period. For one week, users will be able to review the issues and >post any omissions. The initiator will then post a Metadiscussion >Survey which requests all trial newsgroup participants to vote on each >issue. After two weeks for the collection of responses the results >are tallied. A simple majority, greater than half of all responses, >establishes consensus. Unresolved issues, if any, are debated until >the initiator feels an Issue Survey is warranted. Issue Surveys are >like Metadiscussion Surveys except they only concern one issue. Now, then, this starts into the "never again a new group" arena. This idea, while it sounds wonderfully democratic, is absolutely, UTTERLY unattainable, unless your hypothetical "initiator" has 24 hours/day, for the whole month+, to spend looking everywhere for articles that might be important. It means that "frivilous issues" can't be rejected, that "political correctness" is will enter into everything including the NAMES of the issues, and so on. Furthermore, all this voting, on mega-ballots, with lots of those mega-ballots, is an absolutely overwhealming problem. >3. Once all issues raised during the trial period have been resolved, >the initiator posts a Call for Approval for the proposed group to the >same newsgroups that the Trial Newsgroup Announcement was posted to. Except that now, we've added a month to a process that's already far to difficult and flame-prone, and we're about to vote (moan) AGAIN! That even assuming that 'issues ... resolved', is true, which it will never be. Some issues (as your re-raising the newgroup creation issue shows) are NEVER resolved. Since you require "resolution", you'll never even get to your second vote, not once, unless you allow cheating. Period. >Included in the CFA is the approved charter and name of the group, a >summary of the issues and resolutions, and a list of the trial group's >participants. Parallel to the current Call for Votes, the Call for >Approval presents evidence of the consensus of the participants on the >name and charter (via the summary of issues) and evidence of the need >for the group (via the list of participants). Users are requested to >either approve or disapprove of the creation of the proposed group. Huh? There's no practical difference between this process and the last, except for the added work. >Replies are collected for two weeks. A minimum of 100 total replies >and a 2/3 majority in favor should result in the acceptance of the >proposal and the creation of the new group. Two weeks doesn't even come close to propagation times. >ANALYSIS > >1. Does it meet the needs? Recapping our original requirements: > > 1) [Demonstrating] a real need for the group The proposed process is completely ineffective at demonstrating a need, in that the proposed process makes discussions inconvenient. It also requires the moving of existing discussions on the subject, an utterly unreasonable (and impossible) action. In short, as described, the process makes demonstration of the need for a group absolutely impossible in any practical sense. > 2) Consensus on the charter (purpose) and name of the group by > its participants Any issue that is at all controversial will not EVER have this 'concensus'. Those opposed to the fundamental charter, on political, disciminatory, or whatever grounds, will prevent concensus forever. This is a second way that this process prevents the formation of new groups. > 3) Consensus on the demonstration of 1 and the achievement of > 2 by all. Hah. See 2). There's no such thing as concensus on the net. >2. What are the advantages over the current procedures? Well, it will prevent the formation of new groups, but I don't think that's an advantage. > -allows instant formation of a new group without actually > creating a new group False. The process can occur without any changes in the newsgroup guidlines, and in a much more sensible fashion, namely that the place of discussion isn't artifically limited and arranged to be inconvenient to all. > -requires consensus on all issues including name, charter, and > the need for the group by its participants It places an overwhelming workload on the newsgroup proposer, and without any indication of closing of concensus. This "advantage" is logically flawed in that consensus cannot be required of individuals, it can only be encouraged. Furthermore, malicious individuals, which the net has its share of, can and will exploit the "requirement" of consensus in bad faith, without any controls. > -allows and requires participants to demonstrate that they > have a viable group False. It makes it nearly impossible for participants to demonstrate anything. > -allows a new group to define its charter on-the-fly So? That's not new, in practice. > -NO votes are retained, forestalling anarchy So? No votes are NOW retained. Counting "no" votes is no guarantee of not having chaos, and since the net is in FACT an anarchy, one can hardly forstall it. > >What's right with it? What's wrong? Speak your mind! Follow-up, >don't reply, so we can all hear what you have to say. Well, you asked. -- To the Lords of *Mail to jj@alice.att.com or alice!jj Convention *HASA, Atheist Curmudgeon Division 'Twas Claverhouse *Copyright alice!jj 1989, all rights reserved, except Spoke *transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted.