jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/11/90)
In article <epeterso.655576167@houligan> epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >Huh?!? What kind of guidelines are these? If mean that *a* set of >guidelines has been followed, well, yeah, that's true. But if you >mean that *the* Guidelines have been followed, which I'm sure you do >since you are proposing a new group and since there are specific >guidelines for that action, then you're wrong. you will notice that in virtually all of the part of the guidelines you quoted the word "should" was present. not "must", but rather "should", or "may", or "might". these guidelines are meant to serve as guidelines - a "guideline" is an overview or outline of expected behavior. these are not rules cast in stone. also, comp.unix.wizards is not a "new" group - it is an "old" group. the guidelines don't even begin to address issues such as re-creating a group which was freshly removed. >| 1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted ^^^^^^ see? there's that evil "should" word. this runs through and through the entire collection of guidelines. the guidelines are this way on purpose - so that the vote taker can tailor the process to their own particular needs, the nature of the group, and so on. when i run votes i prefer to keep the total number of votes =low=. the best way to do that in the past has been to limit the discussion to only the relevant groups, and not to drag it through the process called "news.groups". i do this because i prefer to send out personal replies when i think the person has a particularly interesting or worthwhile opinion which i want to explore further. ask chip if he responded to 80+% of the voters in his call with more than a mass acknowlegement. >You can't go changing the proposal from un- to moderated in the middle >of the vote (you've already called for votes, remember?)! It's gotta >be the "SAME" proposal. 1 and 8. my proposal is simply to follow the advice of a large number of the opponents to the suggestion. the purpose of this entire process is to create a useful and productive group. ignoring people whose advice you consider to be unbiased or important is not exactly a good use of the resources being given you. since i believe most of the "yes" voters would also support a moderated group, and since i myself have already stated i support a moderated group over an unmoderated one, i don't think dumping the vote on the floor is a bad idea should a moderator step forward. i wrote to one respondent that i would change my tune the second a qualified moderator steps forward. now how is it going to look if the vote taker is against the very proposal they are taking votes for? >Face it -- the net voted to eliminate comp.unix.wizards. Simple as >that. Too bad for you if you don't like it. well, the problem is that a lot of people don't like it. in fact, of the votes i have received so far in which the voters express a negative interest in the group, a large majority would vote "yes" if the group were moderated. in any ratio of "yes" to "no" votes that means the vast majority of the net =wants= the group. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson
fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) (10/11/90)
In article <18585@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: In article <epeterso.655576167@houligan> epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >Huh?!? What kind of guidelines are these? If mean that *a* set of >guidelines has been followed, well, yeah, that's true. But if you >mean that *the* Guidelines have been followed, which I'm sure you do >since you are proposing a new group and since there are specific >guidelines for that action, then you're wrong. you will notice that in virtually all of the part of the guidelines you quoted the word "should" was present. not "must", but rather "should", or "may", or "might". these guidelines are meant to serve as guidelines - a "guideline" is an overview or outline of expected behavior. these are not rules cast in stone. Well, if you carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion you don't really *NEED* to hold a vote at all. You could just newgroup c.u.w and have done with it right? So just go ahead and create it. Oh!! Wait! We tried that one already didn't we??? Oops. Trust me, if a newgroup comes out as a result of this vote that ignores all of those optional guidlines it won't get much farther than the last one did. also, comp.unix.wizards is not a "new" group - it is an "old" group. the guidelines don't even begin to address issues such as re-creating a group which was freshly removed. Funny, I don't see it in my active file. Perhaps you missed the rmgroup that came out a while back? The one that resulted from a vote that did follow all of those optional guidelines? When that vote passed and the rmgroup issued c.u.w ceased to exist as a group. Perhaps that was a mistake. Any effort to create c.u.w now is the creation of a new group...admittedly with special circumstances. But not enough special circumstances to justify ignoring the guidelines that keep usenet from sliding from the goofy to the totally ridiculous. FWP -- -- Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (10/11/90)
[In reply to referenced article by jfh@rpp386.cactus.org] I can't say that I disagree with your reasoning for not posting to news.groups, given that is the place where you are likely to find resistance. I won't argue with you one way or the other as to whether comp.unix.wizards should exist, nor will I argue the value of the guidelines. You are correct when you claim that the guidelines use the word should all over the place. That is because they are GUIDELINES, not LAWS. If you don't do something when you should do it, that is not following the guidelines. Period. Face it, you shot from the hip. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk (Neil Readwin) (10/12/90)
In article <18585@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: |> [...] i prefer to send out personal replies when i |> think the person has a particularly interesting or worthwhile |> opinion which i want to explore further. ask chip if he responded |> to 80+% of the voters in his call with more than a mass acknowlegement. and then ask the voters if they give a damn whether they get a hand crafted reply or a form letter as an acknowledgement. Disclaimer: 818 Phone: +44 71 528 8282 E-mail: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk W Westfield: Abstractions of hammers aren't very good at hitting real nails
emanuele@overlf.UUCP (Mark A. Emanuele) (10/13/90)
I read this newsgroup to TRY to gain more knowledge in unix internals, not to listen to all of this political BULL SH*T. Sorry if I offended anyone, but I am just tired of seeing supposed educated presons act like TWO Year old babies. -- 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