rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/02/90)
In article <69713@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In many cases, I doubt the discussion phase much affects how people feel >about the group itself. But discussion phases have indeed changed the >results of surveys, sometimes considerably. > b) They have caused people to respond based on personality and nits > in proposals rather than on the group itself. I think it will be next to impossible to get rid of bias based on per- sonality (unless we have one central, anonymous source from which net- ters can post proposals and that will also take votes). I'll bet most of us have at one time voted for or against a newsgroup simply because of who was supporting or opposing it. Getting rid of the discussion period would at least diminish the effect this has on voting, thereby increasing the chances that new groups are passed or defeated on their own merits. Furthermore, there are netters here amongst us who are more easily in- timidated than others and who will simply never suggest groups out of fear of public ridicule or retaliation or who will withdraw their pro- posals at the first sign of sarcasm. I don't think someone's insecur- ity should be the determining factor in whether a valid group proposal makes it to the voting stage or not. If the newsgroup is a terrible idea, chances are excellent that it will fail. > c) They have caused people to argue and respond based on the group > name. Amen. If you don't like the name, then vote against it and if the vote fails, then call for another vote yourself. And if it passes, learn to live with it. After all, newsgroup names pale in significance to the actual topics that will be discussed in that group. >The key word here (not said well in the guidelines) is *demonstration*. That's >what this whole thing is about. You have to show objective evidence that >your group is a good idea. What do you have in mind, Brad? What constitutes "objective evidence" that a group is a "good" idea? Granted the current voting process is appallingly easy to circumvent (provided you call it a vote and not an "opinion poll" -- that was deceptively clever of you, Peter, I must admit) but what would you substitute for it? >I would say that the validity of the demonstration is probably not improved >a great deal through the discussion phase, and often is diminished by it. >So I am all for creation of groups without discussion, and I think it follows >the intent of the guidelines just fine. I think this makes a lot of sense, provided the person calling for the vote writes a very thorough proposal that gives the group's charter; justifies the creation of a separate newsgroup (ie, why articles for this intended newsgroup can't or shouldn't be posted to some other existing group); and, in those cases where the person wants to split a newsgroup because of excess traffic, some kind verifiable statistics on the kinds of articles that are being posted now.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (01/03/90)
In Decembers's _Washington Monthly_, there is an article about Senator Sam Nunn. In it the author quotes one of Nunn's aides estimating that some 30% of the Democratic membership votes strictly based on Nunn's opinion, when it comes to defense issues, because they know that his opinions in those areas are well grounded in fact. It is quite possible that many people on USENET also work that way. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]