adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) (05/15/91)
[NOTE: The Followup-To: remains at comp.groups, but I'm crossposting this back to comp.graphics because I'm clarifying Rich's statements, as well as initiating a "restart" of this whole discussion -- read on to find out why.] In article <1991May14.185543.23590@dsd.es.com> rthomson@mesa.dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes: >This entire thread belongs in news.groups where such things take >place. If you want to take a vote on moderation/creation of this >group, it should be done there. If a vote is to be taken, it is permissible to post the call for votes "across any groups at all related to the proposed topic". You're right in that the discussion itself should be channeled to news.groups. > There really isn't much point in >going to all the trouble to take an "unofficial" vote. Why not just >make the vote official? But we haven't even decided whether the group is to be moderated! I quote from the "Guidelines for USENET Group Creation": A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic if desired. [...] The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be determined during the discussion period [30 days, if I read correctly]. [...] AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion might have been posted to. This discussion has already gone on for some time, but it's probably difficult to go ahead and make a formal Call For Votes, justifying this action by invoking the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of the Guidelines. As I see it, we have two alternatives: (1) Let Jamie tally the votes for moderation, post the results, and then proceed with a formal Call For Votes. This involves bending the Guidelines quite a bit, so I don't think this will sit well with the resident net.gods. (2) Stick to the Guidelines and start this discussion all over again, in which case could the person who proposed comp.graphics.research (re)submit a formal Call For Discussion in the following groups? news.announce.newgroups comp.graphics comp.graphics.visualization (perhaps -- it's your call) I propose (2). If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it, but keep it in news.groups this time. (Not that I haven't been guilty on this count. 8-) "The forms must be obeyed." -- The Dune Encyclopedia, W.E. McNelly (ed.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ho, EECS (pronounced "eeks!") Dept. Phone: (415) 642-5563 UC Berkeley adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu
murray@sun13.scri.fsu.edu (John Murray) (05/20/91)
In article <ADRIANHO.91May15013401@barkley.berkeley.edu> adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu (Adrian J Ho) writes: >[NOTE: The Followup-To: remains at comp.groups, but I'm crossposting >this back to comp.graphics because I'm clarifying Rich's statements, >as well as initiating a "restart" of this whole discussion -- read on >to find out why.] ..and I'm posting back to comp.graphics, because I think you are unintentionally confusing the issues. Followups back to news.groups, tho. >> There really isn't much point in >>going to all the trouble to take an "unofficial" vote. Why not just >>make the vote official? > >But we haven't even decided whether the group is to be moderated! True. The moderation issue *must* be settled before issuing the Call For Votes. <[...much quoting from the group creation guidelines...] > >This discussion has already gone on for some time, but it's probably >difficult to go ahead and make a formal Call For Votes, justifying >this action by invoking the "extraordinary circumstances" clause of >the Guidelines. As I see it, we have two alternatives: So far, so good, but I'm afraid you misinterpreted things a little here.. >(1) Let Jamie tally the votes for moderation, post the results, and >then proceed with a formal Call For Votes. This involves bending the >Guidelines quite a bit, so I don't think this will sit well with the >resident net.gods. This is not bending the guidelines at all. Holding an unofficial vote is probably the cleanest and easiest way of deciding whether the majority favor moderation or not. I personally favor moderation, but like a lot of people on both sides, I'll vote for either flavor of c.g.research, and I'm impatient for *some* form of Vote to get underway. This vote should decide fairly and with a minimum of dissension which style of group should be proposed in the official Call For Votes. Since the sides appear to be pretty evenly divided, posting a CFV without a vote like this might just promote dissent, something to be avoided (if possible) during any group creation attempt. >(2) Stick to the Guidelines and start this discussion all over again, >in which case could the person who proposed comp.graphics.research >(re)submit a formal Call For Discussion in the following groups? > >I propose (2). If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it, but keep it in >news.groups this time. (Not that I haven't been guilty on this count. No, restarting from scratch is not called for. However, we can't proceed to the next step (the Call For Votes) without coming to an agreement on moderation. If we *don't* come to an agreement before the CFV, given what just happened with misc.activism.<general>, we would be shot, then hanged, then electrocuted, then perhaps burned to death for good measure. Even worse, they might not propagate our new group! >Adrian Ho, EECS (pronounced "eeks!") Dept. Phone: (415) 642-5563 >UC Berkeley adrianho@barkley.berkeley.edu -- *Standard Disclaimers Apply*| ---Get Out Of HELL Free!--- John R. Murray |The bearer of this card is entitled to forgive murray@vsjrm.scri.fsu.edu |Himself of all Sins, Errors and Transgressions. Supercomputer Research Inst.| -- D. Owen Rowley