stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) (03/08/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) in Message-ID: <39146@apple.Apple.COM> writes: If you feel that a name is not appropriate, rank it with 'NA'. If you have no preferences, don't rank the work. Here's how I'll count this: the name ranked 1 will get 5 points, 2nd three, third two and fourth 1. Names not mentioned (no preference) will get zero. Names marked 'NA' will get minus 2 (-2). This is not one of methods previously proposed or used for selection on Usenet. And there is no evidence that it does a good job or works fairly. In Message-ID: <77475@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> RD Francis <francis@cis.ohio-state.edu> said: >If we were to issue this proposal one >request at a time (thank goodness we won't be, but for the sake of >argument...) I guess my question is would there be an incentive to get >these groups created. There are no guidelines for creating more than one group at a time (this was pointed out to me strongly, see enclosed below), and none for renaming. It is very hard to predict the outcome of multiple changes. The most needed new group should be created. After a few months of heavy cross-posting the actual character of the new group, and thereby, the remainder of c.s.m, will become obvious. Then further changes can be considered. Each renaming results in some newsreaders and mailing lists going out of action. No group should be renamed just to "fit" logically. If absolutely necessary a new group can be created. After people stop using the old one, it can die a peaceful death. This proposed process for restructuring puts too much power in the hands the organizer. It becomes almost impossible for the bad aspects of a big proposal to be eliminated by others. Any deviation from accepted guidelines leads to loss of distribution. The comp.groupware vote showed that even minor deviations (i. e., the use of preferential voting) can lead to substantial reductions. It would be foolish to damage the Mac groups this way. ------------------------------- enclosed------------------------------- 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. [....] ---------------------------enclosed---------------------------- 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) [....] 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. [....] 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, 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. -------------------end enclosures--------------------------- Please note that these enclosures were made public by being send to the list newgroup@ncar.ucar.edu and in any case are part of the public business of Usenet. They remain copyright of the author, but are in the public domain. -- David S. Stodolsky Internet: david@ruc.dk Department of Psychology :stodol@diku.dk Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice: + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax: + 45 31 54 32 11
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/08/90)
stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes: I'm sending followups to this to news.groups, which is where this discussion should be. comp.sys.mac should be for macintosh discussions only. >This is not one of methods previously proposed or used for selection on Usenet. >And there is no evidence that it does a good job or works fairly. >There are no guidelines for creating more than one group at a time (this was >pointed out to me strongly, see enclosed below), and none for renaming. David evidently is coming in in the middle of all of this. The first thing that was done in this proposal was run a binding survey on whether or not the variances from the guidelines were acceptable to the net. That vote passed overwhelmingly, aroung 175 yes to 5 no. I don't believe David was one of the no's, for what it matters. So his arguments that the proposal doesn't meet the guidelines is irrelevant -- the net has already accepted the variances as being acceptable *in this case* (note: not a general change in guidelines. A one time variance). >It is >very hard to predict the outcome of multiple changes. The most needed new group >should be created. After a few months of heavy cross-posting the actual >character of the new group, and thereby, the remainder of c.s.m, will become >obvious. Then further changes can be considered. It was done this was specifically to avoid spending the next two years reorganizing something that's in serious trouble. I don't know about you, but I have better things to do than hold constant votes and discussions. Again, David's argument, based on the votes the net has done, is irrelevant. If people feel the that the re-org is bad, they should argue about it *in news.group only*, not here. C.s.m is bad enough already. And they should make sure to vote no on the parts of the ballot they feel are inappropriate when the voting period starts. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] All spirits are enslaved which serve things evil -- Shelley
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (03/09/90)
According to stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky): >There are no guidelines for creating more than one group at a time (this was >pointed out to me strongly, see enclosed below), and none for renaming. It is >very hard to predict the outcome of multiple changes. The most needed new >group should be created. After a few months of heavy cross-posting the actual >character of the new group, and thereby, the remainder of c.s.m, will become >obvious. Then further changes can be considered. The man has a point. Mr. Stodolsky was roundly criticized for trying to piggyback the group comp.groupware.f onto the back of the comp.groupware vote. Admirably, he took his medicine and didn't make a stink. Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier. Although I do not doubt that Chuq is trying to fill a need, I cannot believe that the world will come to an end if we have to wait through several votes. And if a hurry is required, we'll just have to run them concurrently. Chuq, well known or not, should follow the same guidelines as the rest of us. If we make an exception, then the guidelines really are a sham, and should be repealed without delay. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (03/09/90)
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) in Message-ID: <39146@apple.Apple.COM> writes: > If you feel that a name is not appropriate, rank it with 'NA'. If you > have no preferences, don't rank the work. Here's how I'll count this: > the name ranked 1 will get 5 points, 2nd three, third two and fourth 1. > Names not mentioned (no preference) will get zero. Names marked 'NA' > will get minus 2 (-2). to which stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) responds: > This is not one of methods previously proposed or used for selection on > Usenet. And there is no evidence that it does a good job or works fairly. One of the problems we've been having is how to pick names. There aren't any guideline yet; this is an experiment. I'd prefer simple STV, but this seems to work well enough for a preliminary vote on reasonably non-controversial names. I imagine Chuq would have held a more formal name survey if there had been a lot of flamage. > No group should be renamed just to "fit" logically. If absolutely > necessary a new group can be created. After people stop using the > old one, it can die a peaceful death. I assume you refer to the c.s.mac ==> c.s.m.misc renaming. This was not proposed to make it "fit" better, but to cut down on the cross- and mis-posting. If c.s.mac.misc wins and c.s.mac is not removed then we just have the current problems plus one group worse. > This proposed process for restructuring puts too much power in the > hands the organizer. It becomes almost impossible for the bad aspects > of a big proposal to be eliminated by others. Chuq has proposed, and held a confidence vote on, multiple concurrent votes. Each aspect of the proposal stands on its own. If there are "bad aspects" let's hear about it. Something along the lines of "I urge a NO vote on point X because..." would get the ball rolling, or "I think point X should be split into...", "X and Y should be combined into..." If you have some complaints I want to hear about it before the vote -- that's what a discussion period is for. > [David quotes two letters from Chuq saying that he is > against creation of multiple groups from a single vote.] I'm not sure how the .groupware vote went, but Chuq mentioned creating multiple groups with a *single* vote. In his current proposal there will be multiple votes, albeit simultaneously. Look, you're obviously unhappy with Chuq's proposal, but the only concrete complaints I saw were about the voting *procedure*. If you see something in the proposal that will damage the mac groups themselves, please bring it up. -Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/09/90)
In article <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > Mr. Stodolsky was roundly criticized for trying to piggyback the group > comp.groupware.f onto the back of the comp.groupware vote. Admirably, > he took his medicine and didn't make a stink. > Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier. There's one major difference. The very first thing Chuq did was run a poll on whether or not this was OK in this particular case. The result of this poll was overwhelmingly positive (like over a hundred to less than twenty). The comp.groupware.f was sprung without any discussion. And there was no way to vote for or against each group individually. > Although I do not doubt that Chuq is trying to fill a need, I cannot > believe that the world will come to an end if we have to wait through > several votes. And if a hurry is required, we'll just have to run > them concurrently. Which is exactly what Chuq's doing. He's running the several votes concurrently, just with one single call for votes. Would you be happier if he issued 6 or 8 seperate calls? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/09/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >There's one major difference. The very first thing Chuq did was run a poll >on whether or not this was OK in this particular case. The result of this >poll was overwhelmingly positive (like over a hundred to less than twenty). The current result, including the negative comments I've seen on the net (there were, I think, three: David, Tim and someone else) is about 175 yes, 10 no. Neither Tim nor David brought this up during the discussion of whether the form of the call for votes was appropriate (or if they did, it never arrived here at apple) and neither formally voted on the procedure when the vote was open for discussion and voting. It doesn't seem to be logical to consider that ten negative votes outweighs 175 positive votes, especially when three of those negative votes were never sent by mail and are being counted even though the voting has long since been closed. And, as I have mentioned on multiple occasions, when the formal call for vote comes out on Monday, people will have a chance to either vote 'no' on the parts of the proposal they don't like, or vote 'no' on every one of the ballot proposals if they feel strongly about it. USENET likes to consider itself a democracy where everyone gets a vote and has a say in how things are done. I think this reorg touches the heart of that wish: guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. In *every* place where I've deviated from the guidelines, I've asked the net for permission. In *every* place it's been done openly and the net has had a chance to say yes or no. When the net has disagreed with me, I've listened and modified the proposal. I've kept people as involved as I possibly could. When there was any question of propriety, I've asked, and I've followed what the net told me. If that's not the essence of USENET, I don't know what is. And now two or three people feel their will is more important than the couple of hundred who are enthusiastically for this proposal? I don't see that as reasonable, which is why I'm not delaying the vote or modifying the proposal. Besides, there is *still* one more vote coming. If people really don't like this proposal, they can still vote it down. All of this previous discussion and debate and surveys and voting were preliminaries designed to build a ballot. Now USENET can either vote the items on the ballot up or down. My argument is simple: let the people decide. If they think David or Tim are right, they'll vote the ballot down. If they think David or Tim are wrong, they'll vote in the parts of the ballot they think should be implemented. It's not up to me, or to Tim or to David to subvert that process. >The comp.groupware.f was sprung without any discussion. And there was no >way to vote for or against each group individually. The other major difference between this reorg and comp.groupware, and one that is just as important: comp.groupware was being created from scratch and there was no justified need for two groups. Comp.sys.mac is an existing, large and vibrant hierarchy of its own that needed some rehabilitation. There's no argument that an excess of volume exists already and that creating a single group simple wouldn't have been enough -- we would have been back with Yet Another C.S.M proposal in two or three months, and with the growth we've seen there, within a year or so there would simply be a permanent c.s.m dicussion/voting proposal floating around. The whole purpose of this was to try to avoid getting into a situation where it was broken to the point it couldn't be fixed. The point is this: the comp.groupware.f hassle was a situation were the guidelines were to a good degree ignored or misinterpreted. I don't think it was handled as cleanly as it could have been -- the proposal should have been cleaned up before it went to the call for votes, rather than after the fact like it was. I wasn't involved in that setup until the last minute, however. There really is no real similarity except in the mind of David, who still seems to be upset that he didn't get his way while I seem to be getting mine. The reason the situations are different, however, is that I've been very careful to define 'my way' as being what the net wants, and I did that by asking permission every time I did something, and, ultimately giving the net the final say on every issue independently rather than lumping multiple decisions into a single vote. The net can STILL say yes or no on any item. If I was really trying to force my agenda through, I would have simply handed out a ballot and told people to vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which, frankly, would have been a LOT less work on my part than this proposal has been. chuq (if I had, it probably would have failed, too. One thing I've learned about the net: they like to be involved. Throw something in the nets collective face, and the net is likely to stomp on it. Keep them involved, and they'll happily work WITH you). -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] All spirits are enslaved which serve things evil -- Shelley
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/09/90)
In article <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky): > >Mr. Stodolsky was roundly criticized for trying to piggyback the group >comp.groupware.f onto the back of the comp.groupware vote. Admirably, >he took his medicine and didn't make a stink. As I recall, he tried to stick it on after discussion, not before. And he didn't run a separate vote for the '.f' group, he assumed that a vote for comp.groupware was a vote for the '.f' group. >Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier. >Although I do not doubt that Chuq is trying to fill a need, I cannot >believe that the world will come to an end if we have to wait through >several votes. And if a hurry is required, we'll just have to run >them concurrently. > >Chuq, well known or not, should follow the same guidelines as the rest >of us. If we make an exception, then the guidelines really are a >sham, and should be repealed without delay. They aren't a sham (though certain net.people think so), they just aren't THE LAW. They are GUIDELINES. In any case, since Chuq is running concurrent votes in the same call for votes, the scheme is equivalent to running separate concurrent votes, just more convenient. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) (03/10/90)
In article <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky): > >There are no guidelines for creating more than one group at a time (this was > >pointed out to me strongly, see enclosed below), and none for renaming. It is > >very hard to predict the outcome of multiple changes. The most needed new > >group should be created. After a few months of heavy cross-posting the actual > >character of the new group, and thereby, the remainder of c.s.m, will become > >obvious. Then further changes can be considered. > > > Now we have Chuq trying to do the same thing he criticized earlier. Are we to believe that 180 responses to chuq is really a quorum. Perhaps chuq would be more advised to take a weeks traffic and tell us (title lines only) how he would have distributed them differently, and then each of us can judge whether we would have not wanted to read the subsection these fell into. This looks to me a way to fracture comp.sys.mac into littler peices with only one beneficiary, chuq. Should chuq wish to take this as a vote, consider is NO, on any and all changes. Howard C. Johnson ATT Bell Labs att!lzsc!hcj hcj@lzsc.att.com
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (03/10/90)
In article <1381@lzsc.ATT.COM> hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) writes: >Are we to believe that 180 responses to chuq is really a quorum. > >Perhaps chuq would be more advised to take a weeks traffic and >tell us (title lines only) how he would have distributed them differently, >and then each of us can judge whether we would have not wanted to read >the subsection these fell into. > >This looks to me a way to fracture comp.sys.mac into littler peices with >only one beneficiary, chuq. 1. This argument belongs in news.groups 2. This has already been hashed over. A call for votes on whether to allow a bulk-reorganization was made to news.announce.newgroups (or whatever). 3. The vote for allowing a bulk reorganization passed. If your vote wasn't counted because you didn't bother to vote, tough. There will be a final voting once discussion and suggestions on the best way to reorganize have been processed by Chuq. He's trying to do a job which many people think needs to be done. If you don't think it needs to be done, fine. You'll get a chance to vote (once again...) on whether the reorganization will happen. 100 more YES votes than NO votes means it'll be reorganized. If you feel it's better to leave it alone and not split it, the please do your part and vote. >Should chuq wish to take this as a vote, consider is NO, on any and all changes. Sorry, but votes are not being taken at this time. I'd recommend reading news.groups and news.announce.newgroups so you'll be sure not to miss your chance at voting. Lastly, please folks, move this discussion to news.groups. It's where it belongs. I'll make my final decision when the proposal on how the groups are to be reorganized comes up for vote. I've mailed my suggestions to Chuq and if I'm really concerned, I'll tune into news.groups. ALL followups to news.groups, PLEASE! Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | DISCLAIMER: I'm graduating and looking for Consultant | a job, so I'll stand by my words. Computer Resource Center |============================================== Dartmouth College | EMAIL: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (03/10/90)
>>>>> On 9 Mar 90 18:55:43 GMT, hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) said: > Are we to believe that 180 responses to chuq is really a quorum. 170 to 10. That would create a group under the current guidelines (you know, Y-100 > N and Y > 2N). Seems good enough to establish that there's no major opposition to running simultaneous multiple votes. > Perhaps chuq would be more advised to take a weeks traffic and > tell us (title lines only) how he would have distributed them differently, > and then each of us can judge whether we would have not wanted to read > the subsection these fell into. That's what the multiple votes are for. I'm not going to vote a blanket yes. I don't think c.s.m.games belongs (I think the rec.games hierarchy needs a restructuring, actually :-), so I vote against that. I think c.s.m.system belongs, so I vote for that. Simple, no? > This looks to me a way to fracture comp.sys.mac into littler peices with > only one beneficiary, chuq. Hardly. I'll benefit. When c.s.m.hardware was split off, I benefitted, because I'm not buying much in the way of hardware right now (so I can ignore it until I'm looking for hardware). With the "new" c.s.m hierarchy I can easily decide what groups to read now and what groups to defer. Right now I have a huge kill-file for c.s.m which makes it barely readable. -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <...!bu.edu!bu-pub!ckd> "Basic upshot - get your science straight, or start getting used to the taste of your Nikes." --Siobahn Morgan, thebang@blake.acs.washington.edu
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (03/11/90)
I think there are quite enough mac newsgroups already. I don't think anyone will benefit by further fragmentation of the newsgroup. I vote NO. Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |Where there's a BEER, cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |there's a plan. (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null |Need I say more? ------------------------------+---------------------------
werner@milano.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) (03/11/90)
hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) wrote: > Are we to believe that 180 responses to chuq is really a quorum. 175 to 5 seems to me a pretty good measuring stick of how opinions tend to be distributed on the matter. > Perhaps chuq would be more advised to take a weeks traffic and > tell us (title lines only) how he would have distributed them differently, > and then each of us can judge whether we would have not wanted to read > the subsection these fell into. nobody would bother to read and evaluate such an article discussing 500+ Subject headers ... there is no indication that there is a problem with agreeing on 5 or so topic-areas into which the current traffic can be split. Your article has more the sound of a party- pooper than of an objection that is well-founded. (sorry, but that's the way you came across when I read your article). why don't you do the work and "proof" that there is no such distri- bution to be found? and see if anyone cares to read your article of certainly 500+ lines ? > This looks to me a way to fracture comp.sys.mac into littler peices with > only one beneficiary, chuq. don't make nebulous personal attacks if you expect anyone to take you serious. > Should chuq wish to take this as a vote, consider is NO, > on any and all changes. even if he wanted to, he cannot (and should not) take posted articles as votes. And currently there is no vote-counting going on of the kind that would fit YOUR vote, anyway ... Even though I have my disagreements with "details" in Chuq's proposal, I am responding to this article in defense of Chuq, because I believe that when a netter is attacked personally in this fashion, he should not have to respond himself, but "the public" should speak up and discourage "distractions" of the kind Howard posted.... Cheers, ---Werner -- --------------------------> please send REPLIES to <------------------------ INTERNET: werner@cs.utexas.edu or: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet # 128.83.144.1) UUCP: ...<well-connected-site>!cs.utexas.edu!werner
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (03/11/90)
I thought this discussion was supposed to be taking place only in
news.groups. I want to read about macintoshes, not about reorgainizing
macintosh groups. If other people want to haggle about the orgainization
of the mac groups, fine, but do it in news.groups where I don't have to see
it and let me know how it all works out in the end.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (03/13/90)
According to chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): >And, as I have mentioned on multiple occasions, when the formal call for >vote comes out on Monday, people will have a chance to either vote 'no' on >the parts of the proposal they don't like, or vote 'no' on every one of the >ballot proposals if they feel strongly about it. This is quite true. I'm not satisfied about the valididity of the points system Chuq plans to use in the mac vote. However, I have had proven to my satisfaction that the net.voters have approved of the scheme. Also, the vote will actually be many simultaneous votes. I therefore retract my objection to the mac.reorganization. (You were all just waiting for the announcement, I know. :-)) -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."