emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (10/19/90)
In article <18603@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > 3). Why didn't this get posted in news.groups? Isn't that a > requirement? > The guidelines only suggest that news.groups be included, > as well as other "relevant" newsgroups. Since news.groups > is not related to the subject of UNIX programming, and > since it is typically such a high-noise newsgroup, I felt > news.groups was an inappropriate newsgroup. You are a liar. The guidelines make no mention of posting a call for votes to news.groups. The only group mentioned specifically is the moderated group news.announce.newgroups. It is a low noise, low volume group. The basic information for all USENET users, regularly posted to news.announce.newusers, includes "Introduction to news.announce". That article tells every USENET reader that news.announce.newgroups exists solely to announce creation or consideration of new newsgroups, and that all calls for votes and discussions, all vote results, and all creation notices should be posted there. Sysops do not have time to read every special interest group. The news.announce groups are there for a reason. Public announcement of a vote where sysops can see it is a basic responsibility which you have abrogated. Your attempt to spread misinformation in order to justify your error is contemptible. I refuse to dignify your campaign with a vote. Ed
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (10/19/90)
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, on the whole Mr. Haugh's vote does NOT follow the guidelines for newsgroup creation. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (10/20/90)
This is getting to the point of absurdity. Compounding one mistake with another is just going to make things worse. In news.groups you write: >The most commonly spread lie is that I have kept the discussion out >of news.groups out of some fear of the news.groups crowd. Nothing >could be further from the truth. I have no control over who posts >my articles to this group, and indeed, people continue to post >articles about this vote to that very group. First, I don't believe you anymore. You have done your best to hush discussion and keep criticism down. In addition, you failed to work with others who have your exact goal in mind. You had no intention of working with this group quite probably until I posted my little followup to the same plethera of groups you used to convey your feelings on the matter. I cannot dispute the logic for wanting to avoid news.groups, as it would be the easiest way to avoid a whole bunch of ``no'' votes, and yet show the backbone that you have support. However, your public statements would lead one to the opinion that you believe that only the people in comp.unix.* should be involved in decisions regarding the namespace, and that all others are just meddling in other people's business. What you are forgetting is that there are a whole bunch of news administrators who have already aliased the group to comp.unix.internals. Even if most of them unalias the group, you will have a mess, because articles will be sent to junk as a result of those who haven't. In fact, even if the esoterica group is created, the same will be true. To create unix-wizards without aliasing the other group would also be a waste, because much of the discussion now belongs in one of the other groups, and I would argue that we should give those groups a chance and the system administrators a break before warping the namespace yet again. While I admire your goal (although I dislike your duplicity), I agree with Chip that now is not the time to change comp.unix.internals to anything else, because of these problems. >>Public announcement of a vote where sysops can see it is a basic >>responsibility which you have abrogated. Your attempt to spread >>misinformation in order to justify your error is contemptible. I >>refuse to dignify your campaign with a vote. I already have a call for votes from someone else that wishes to see the issue decided. I'm not going to post *ANY* actions on this subject until you get together other individuals on this issue and elect someone to handle a vote or what have you. Again, I argue that now a bad time for this vote. Of course, who am I but your lowly moderator to make such decisions? -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (10/20/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: | In article <Oct.18.15.51.56.1990.18091@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) writes: | >Just so that there is no misunderstanding, on the whole Mr. Haugh's | >vote does NOT follow the guidelines for newsgroup creation. | | You and the rest of the people who claim I am violating the guidelines | have repeatedly been asked to mail me your favorite version of the | guidelines so that I can point out, item by item, how I have adhered | to the absolute letter of the guidelines. In the end, it doesn't really matter whether or not you've adhered to the Guidelines to the letter. What really matters is how many system adminstrators are going to respect your so-called "vote" to carry the group. By ignoring all the due process that has been established on the net over the years, you've done more to kill comp.unix.wizards than anything "T.E." Chip Salzenberg could ever do. | Claiming that the guidelines are all | "suggestions" and not "lawis" is not a valid complaint. You never have | to follow "suggestions", that's what the difference between a | "suggestion" and a "law" is. The "should" vs. "must" argument has come up many times. However, you've got to remember that the users of Usenet are *not* the ones who ultimately have the authority over what group gets created and what doesn't; it's the SAs who have it. No matter how much whining you do or how much arguing with you anyone else does, the SAs of the network decide whether or not the group flies. | However, since this red-herring continues to be used as a reason to | oppose a legitimate vote, I have sent the "formal" "CALL FOR VOTES" | to Eliot for posting. At that point in time I suspect he will post | a note saying the vote now follows all of these unstated requirements. Somehow I doubt that. Even Kent would agree with Eliot's reasoning on this issue :-). Eric -- Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (10/21/90)
>Just so that there is no misunderstanding, on the whole Mr. Haugh's >vote does NOT follow the guidelines for newsgroup creation. Just so there is an understanding, I asked Eliot in mail a while ago if I should draft a Call For Votes, to which the response was to await this vote. I have mentioned this twice in news.groups and it has not been contradicted. Thus, the moderator seems to abide the vote itself while being highly critical of its promulgation. I agree on the second point, and will go along with the first assuming that the vote can have a meaningful result. "on the whole" above could mean that absent a proper Call we can have a vote but not exactly know what the results should mean, since there is no proposed charter. However, in this case there was a perfectly good charter already which can fill the gap handily. The Guidelines _have_ been followed to a tee, but the "T" came at the start of the voting rather than near the end when it is more customary to bend a rule or two. The Guidelines' spirit was being ignored rather more baldly when just before this Vote was called for "my version of the Guidelines is better than your version" and "I called for this discussion and I am not going to let anyone call for its vote" started being bandied about. So, as they say here in Chicago, Vote Early, Vote Often! -- My .signature is on vacation ------------- like me!
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (10/22/90)
Aside from the fact that I have posted areas in which I believe the
guidelines were violated, Mr. Haugh insists that we run through this
argument yet again.
From The Guidelines (slightly reformatted, but NOT reworded):
The Discussion
1) 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. This group is moderated, and The Followup-to: header
will be set so that the actual discussion takes place only in
news.groups. Users on sites which have difficulty posting to
moderated groups may mail submissions intended for
news.announce.newgroups to "announce-newgroups@turbo.bio.net".
Mr. Haugh failed to send a call for discussion of any sort to
news.announce.newgroups, nor did he send one to news.groups. Instead
there was discussion of comp.unix.esoterica. As that discussion winds
down, the following ``guideline'' applies:
2) 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. If there is no general agreement on these points among
the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days of
discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail
instead of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the
details among themselves. Once that is done, a new, more
specific proposal may be made, going back to step 1) above.
There was no consensus on the name, whatsoever. In fact, there was no
consensus on who should take the vote, if it should be taken at all,
and what should be voted on. Now unless (2) has no reason for
existing in those guidelines, I suspect it was to handle situations
such as just this one. Now if that isn't bad enough, we move on to
The Vote
1) 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.
There should be minimal delay between the end of the discussion
period and the issuing of a call for votes. The call for votes
should include clear instructions for how to cast a vote. It
must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote
for creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly
permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no
votes to provided that they are on the same machine, to set up
an address different than that the article was posted from to
mail votes to, or to just accept replies to the call for votes
article, as long as it is clearly and explicitly stated in the
call for votes article how to cast a vote. If two addresses are
used for a vote, the reply address must process and accept both
yes and no votes OR reject them both.
The call for votes was not posted to news.announce.newgroups nor
news.groups, the one group in which discussion over
comp.unix.esoterica continued without a resolution.
Since we haven't gotten beyond this point in the guidelines, Mr. Haugh
has yet to break any more of the ``suggestions''.
Mr. Haugh wrongly asserts that those who do (did?/will?) not read
comp.unix.wizards have no reason to vote on the matter, yet his
assertions are riddled with fallacies, the key fallacy being that of
omission. In this particular instance, there will be a rather big
mess if the group gets created, because many sites have aliased
comp.unix.wizards to be comp.unix.internals. What would happen to a
message that was posted to comp.unix.wizards, and then sent to a site
that aliases wizards to internals, then passed to a site that keeps
only wizards? Junk. The reverse could also happen. One could and
possibly should argue that the system administrators should be more
diligent in maintaining their news systems, yet that message has ended
up in the junk directory, anyway. Thus, it may be in the system
administrator's interest to vote ``no''. Yet it may also be in that
same person's interest to vote ``yes'' just out of principle (who
knows?). Mr. Haugh argues that these people do not have a right to
vote. Then there are the namespace purists who don't want to see a
vague term like ``wizards'' used. Mr. Haugh doesn't want these people
to vote, either.
In addition, Mr. Haugh continues his barrage of logic by claiming to
have been in touch with a number of people involved with possibly
another vote, yet he continues his to add to the confusion by
proceeding with his current vote. Tell me Mr. Haugh, have you been in
touch with Laird Heel or Nick Sayer? You, sir, were the last to join
the party, and the first to wear a lamp shade.
--
Eliot Lear
[lear@turbo.bio.net]gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) (10/22/90)
In article <18611@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
#and again, i will state one more time, eliot has yet to find a
#single requirement in the guidelines which i have not adhered
#to. this is now the fifth time i have asked eliot to back up
#his claim that i am ignoring the requirements for newsgroup
#creation.
Since the guidelines by their very nature do not have "requirements"
only "guidelines", why don't you just newgroup comp.unix.wizards and
be done with it? You would have followed the guidlines just as much,
since they are not requirements anyway.
Oh, but then the sysadmins won't honor your newgroup? Pity.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wgary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct21.194930.5815@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In article <18611@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: ># [ Haughs' commentary deleted ] >Since the guidelines by their very nature do not have "requirements" >only "guidelines", why don't you just newgroup comp.unix.wizards and >be done with it? You would have followed the guidlines just as much, >since they are not requirements anyway. This was already tried; it didn't work (at this site, anyway). >Oh, but then the sysadmins won't honor your newgroup? Pity. Not until I see a proper CFD, discussion, CFV, and vote, I won't. I have, however, come up with an approach to reduce problems in the event they try to slip something by again. As per my request, our feed site has inserted "!comp.unix.wizards" into our sys file. :-) -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) "The esteemed gentlebeing says I called him a liar. It's true, and I regret that." Retief, in "Retiefs' Ransom" by Keith Laumer.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (10/23/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >the discussion of the newsgroup existed in comp.unix.wizards for several >weeks prior to any discussion to recreate the newsgroup. in fact, it was >the single loudest topic of discussion in comp.unix.internals. You have chosen to misunderstand events. Discussion was for the creation of comp.unix.esoterica. Then he writes, well, a whole bunch of irrelevent things about what happens when you take a poll of the advocates of an idea. There was no concensus in this group, where I believe it counts. And then he writes: >first, this is not a vote about comp.unix.esoterica. Too bad! That might have been Ok... >vote about comp.unix.wizards, and has been stated over and over >again, has =no= bearing on what should be done with any other .unix >group. Then you, sir, have *no* consideration for the name space, and certainly should be ignored. As to what Chip refused to do, it is irrelevant. There were other people willing to handle a vote, and there was a possibility of a solution out of Erik Fair; all of these facts (plus more, see my other posting) you chose not to consider. >how can you break a damned ``suggestion''? a quick lesson in english >semantics, since you seem to be illiterate. You can't break a suggestion, but don't claim to be following it when you are not. That is the point of this lesson (as I have stated at least six times. Who is illiterate? Next he goes drivels on about my moderating responsibilities. My responsibilities are primarily to the users and system administrators who don't read news.groups (with good reason). I am the final authority over what gets posted in that group, and will not have N different votes for the same result go on at once. >furthermore, he hasn't completely dismissed the call for votes >as being illegitimate since he has told other people who want to >hold votes that he won't until this "invalid" vote is complete. My apologies for any confusion. I will ask Laird to push ahead with his vote. I do dismiss John Haugh's call for votes as completely invalid, and I will not only ignore actions based on his results, I will counter them until such time as the issue is resolved. Can move on, now? -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (10/23/90)
In article <Oct.21.12.05.41.1990.27169@turbo.bio.net>, lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) writes: > [Haugh's newsgroup proposal fails to follow the guidelines because] > Mr. Haugh failed to send a call for discussion of any sort to > news.announce.newgroups, nor did he send one to news.groups. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In article <18613@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) responds: > the discussion of the newsgroup existed in comp.unix.wizards for several > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > weeks prior to any discussion to recreate the newsgroup. in fact, it was > the single loudest topic of discussion in comp.unix.internals. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You have demanded that Eliot explain how your newgroup proposal fails to follow the guidelines. He has done that. The guidelines suggest posting a CfD to news.announce.newgroups, not comp.unix.wizards or comp.unix.internals. Your claims, while possibly true, are irrelevant; they fail to show how Eliot is wrong. In fact, Eliot is right. -- peace. -- Ed "Vote. Because it's the Right Thing."
richard@locus.com (Richard M. Mathews) (10/23/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >there are words called "auxillary verbs". these words modify the verb >in the sentence in some fashion. in the case of "conditional auxillary >verbs", such as "should", "might", and "may" the word implies permission. You want to be picky about wording? How about this line from the guidelines: It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. This says MUST not SHOULD. I don't have your original "call for votes," but it contained a statement like "if you want c.u.wizards back, send your yes votes to my address." Nothing was said about where no votes should go. Since the guidelines go on to say It is explicitly permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes to provided that they are on the same machine.... you can't claim you advertised the address for no votes by implying the address is the same as for yes votes. You even implicitly acknowledged this error when, 2 weeks after "voting" began, you posted a note to c.u.internals which included "where do I send 'NO' votes" in a list of questions and complaints you received. >when the vote was first announce in comp.unix.internals >the voting ran 6 to 1 IN FAVOR of returning .wizards. even after enough >time was allowed for the article to go out, and return, the votes were >still on the order of 5 to 1. this is PRIMA FACIA evidence of consensus. >even still the votes run 2 to 1. you can't get any more "consensus" than >that. This message was not really a "repeat of the call for votes," but these statistics do push the limits of these guidelines: Partial vote results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. It is permitted to post a "mass acknowledgement" in which all the names of those from whom votes have been received are posted, as long as no indication is made of which way anybody voted until the voting period is officially over. Also, do these stats really give evidence of a consensus on the name? Or do they indicate that more people started to vote NO after it was clear how to do so? Or do they indicate that more people voted NO once the existence of the vote became known in more of the "standard" places? Or do they just indicate that those of us who would vote NO in a legitimate vote refuse to recognize your vote? >first, this is not a vote about comp.unix.esoterica. this is a >vote about comp.unix.wizards, and has been stated over and over >again, has =no= bearing on what should be done with any other .unix >group. attempting to link this in with comp.unix.{internals,esoterica} >is absurd. read my lips - this has nothing to do with any other >group besides comp.unix.wizards. then later, >many people have sent me "yes" votes JUST TO AVOID esoterica being >the name. Looks like reading your lips is as useful as reading George Bush's! >this is eliot's response - >> Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.unix.wizards >> In-Reply-To: Your message of 19 Oct 90 04:36:33 GMT >> Message-Id: <CMM.0.88.656579882.lear@turbo.bio.net> >> Status: RO >> >> I'll not post this article until you conclude your current vote, <...> I agree with Eliot. A vote posted by him must begin at or about the time of that announcement. If you are willing to discard all votes received to date and start over, then Eliot should post your CFV (but I think a rational discussion of the real issues of the creation of c.u.wizards rather than the politics of the guidelines is still needed -- a CFD must proceed the CFV, or I will vote NO). The bottom line: I believe we should wait until the end of a 6 month cooling off period measured from the completion of the c.u reorg before trying to make any changes to it. We can live with c.u.internals until then (if you can't, you really need to get a life;-). In the mean time, proponents of wizards, internals, kernel, esoterica, etc., can debate the advantages and disadvantages of each and hopefully when the time comes we can have some rational debate on the real issues, not bullshit. Richard M. Mathews D efend Locus Computing Corporation E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian richard@locus.com I ndependence lcc!richard@seas.ucla.edu ...!{uunet|ucla-se|turnkey}!lcc!richard
emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) (10/23/90)
HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE W A S T E OF BANDWIDTH. -- Mark A. Emanuele V.P. Engineering Overleaf, Inc. 500 Route 10 Ledgewood, NJ 07852-9639 attmail!overlf!emanuele (201) 927-3785 Voice (201) 927-5781 fax emanuele@overlf.UUCP
ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (10/24/90)
In referenced article, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >there is historical precident for creating groups with little >regard for the guidelines. ..and thereby lies the crux of the whole problem. Little regard for the guidelines not only by jfh, but by the inconsistent Mr. Lear who posted the call for votes on comp.benchamrks recently, even though: >[This posting does not strictly adhere to the guidelines, as the call > for votes was not timely.-eliot] and the call for votes on talk.politics.drugs, when: >[I never received a call for discussion for this group.eliot] Eliot certainly doesn't allow guidlines to hamper him when it suits him, but it does seem to suit him as far as JFH is concerned (and I might even agree with him on that one!). Now consider the following quote from Eliot: >Subject: Re: Call for Discussion - talk.politics.ireland >Message-ID: <Sep.3.14.16.25.1990.20266@turbo.bio.net> > >> Ignoring for a moment the specifics of talk.politics.ireland, the only >> legitimate reason for the creation of a newsgroup is success according to >> the guidlines in a properly conducted vote. > >The guidelines document exists as a means to an end, and not as an end >in itself, so it is oversimplistic to argue that a group should exist >simply because the guidelines say so. >... >The USENET ran a lot better for a longer period of time when the >number and name of groups was controlled by a small group of people, >so the net certainly existed based on my beliefs on newsgroup >creation. It is clear that Eliot is not moderating, but is manipulating the newsgroup creation process to suit his own beliefs. John F. Haugh is attempting to do exactly the same thing. Many other people have also done exactly that over the years (something sound scientifically fishy here?) While the guidelines are only guidelines, this will go on indefinitely, and, probably, perfectly legitimately. I believe one of two things has to happen to clean up this mess. Either the guidelines must be converted as soon as possible into RULES, or preferably, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups must publish definitively the way that he will interpret the guidlines, and he must stick to that interpretation consistently, treating them as rules. Following the latter course would be ideal, it would allow the net to choose (or retain) a moderator based on his/her stated interpretation of the guidelines. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmtl.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8987 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX: 05-824090
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (10/25/90)
In article <18609@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >However, since this red-herring continues to be used as a reason to >oppose a legitimate vote, I have sent the "formal" "CALL FOR VOTES" >to Eliot for posting. At that point in time I suspect he will post >a note saying the vote now follows all of these unstated requirements. What happened to the CFD? The last I recall, there was a discussion in news.groups, and no clear consensus had been reached as to a) whether or not to bring the group back, and b) whether or not it should keep the same name. (I, for example, was leaning towards c.u.esoterica, as a self-moderated group.) Then, all of a sudden, jfh said he was tired of all the discussion, and issued a CFV in c.u.*. *That* was not according to the guidelines, and is why I will vote NO for this. Now, can we *please* keep this discussion out of c.u.i?! (Note followups, ok?) -- -----------------+ Sean Eric Fagan | "*Never* knock on Death's door: ring the bell and seanf@sco.COM | run away! Death hates that!" uunet!sco!seanf | -- Dr. Mike Stratford (Matt Frewer, "Doctor, Doctor") (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.