mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (11/19/89)
"David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: >Of course our guidelines do not prevent [lobbying by email], so it is >'legal', indeed it is hard to see how it could be prevented totally. >But if it becomes common practice, it is going to create some real >distortions in the voting results; Okay, if we're interested in taking this democracy thang seriously, I propose that we institute [da da da dahhhh] Voter Registration: In order to participate in a newgroup vote, a user must register with some central [gasp] authority [gasp] two months before the call for votes. A voter's registration will lapse if s/he fails to participate in a vote for a period of 12 months. [In fairness, I think this would also necessitate an abstention vote which would serve to keep the voter's registration active.] Of course, a voter whose registration has expired can reregister as described above. Some fairly simple software could maintain the voting/registration records. It could even send email to voters whose registration is about to expire. So: o Disenfranchised readers could not be rounded up to vote for a group for which they have no genuine interest. o New comers and casual net.readers with a direct interest in the proposed group can freely lobby registered voters in news.groups. Thus, voting becomes a sort of ad hoc representative democracy, where those voting evaluate public opinion and the Good of the Net. o Voters are more likely to have a better sense of Usenet culture and of net.continuity. This would make it more likely that they would understand *why* hierarchy foo.bar is a bad place for a proposed newsgroup. [If there's one thing we learned from the s.a ordeal, it's that many, many voters merely found the [ahem] debate to be loud, as opposed to informative. ---- Myself, I think making the net's operation more democratic will be a failed experiment. I would prefer to see it move more towards genuine anarchy, with each site acting as independently and heterogeneously as possible. However, if we're going to insist on amend (rather than rewriting) the current voting procedure, then I think some form of registration is in order. -- void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (11/19/89)
Oddly enough, I wrote a proposal on 'voter' registration a few months ago that was almost exactly like this one. I wrote it because I got tired of all the people who call these things votes when they aren't. Aside from normally being binding, all real votes also require that voters be on a list. But on reflection, I decided it was yet more bureaucracy, and we need less and less, not more and more. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Thomas Lynn Egelston Ii) (11/20/89)
In article <48464@bbn.COM> mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard) writes: >Okay, if we're interested in taking this democracy thang seriously, I >propose that we institute [da da da dahhhh] Voter Registration: In >order to participate in a newgroup vote, a user must register with some >central [gasp] authority [gasp] two months before the call for votes. > > [Portion Deleted to avoid bandwidth flames] > > o Disenfranchised readers could not be rounded up to vote for a group > for which they have no genuine interest. This would not restrict the number of voters to those who are interested in the proposed group, but restrict the number of voters to those who read news.groups on a regular basis and who are interested in the proposed group, which then defeats the purpose of voting for new groups, which is to see if there is enough interest to justify a newsgroup. For example, lets look at the proposed group comp.graphics.images. The discussion of the possible need of a seperate group came up after some people began posting uuencoded images in comp.graphics. There was some discussion of creating a new group in comp.graphics, but the discussion was then moved here to news.groups, where it really belongs. The people who were interested in the possibility of a new group (namely, myself) then subscribed to this group, to keep up with that discussion. Under your proposed system, I would not be granted a vote for a group that I truly am interested in, because even though I may have been reading comp.graphics for a year, I've only thought (or known?) about voting for new group creation for two weeks. -- Tom Egelston Internet: tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu All opinions expressed are mine. Universities aren't allowed to have opinions. "I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of grandeur!" -Captain Han Solo
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (11/21/89)
tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Thomas Lynn Egelston Ii) writes: >Under your proposed system, I would >not be granted a vote for a group that I truly am interested in, because even >though I may have been reading comp.graphics for a year, I've only thought >(or known?) about voting for new group creation for two weeks. Right. That may sound harsh, and is certainly a radical change from current Usenet philosophy (where a yes vote is interpreted as "I'd probably read this group" rather than "I think this group would be a Good Thing for the net"). But as others have pointed out, continuity and consistency are two of the most important ingredients in a classification scheme. People who come to a vote with a private agenda, and have not witnessed/"thought about" newsgroup creation can provide neither. In other words, membership in the Usenet parliament would be restricted to those who have acquired a sense of Usenet social norms. Of course, as an interested party and veteran of comp.graphics your expert testimony would be invaluable during the discussion period. -- void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (11/21/89)
In article <48464@bbn.COM> mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard) writes: > >Okay, if we're interested in taking this democracy thang seriously, I >propose that we institute [da da da dahhhh] Voter Registration: In >central [gasp] authority [gasp] two months before the call for votes. This throws out the baby with the bathwater. Part of the justification for the current voting system is that it allows determining that there will be a minimal level of interest in the proposed group. /* disclaimer - personal opinion unvalidated by scientific evidence */ Most of the people who vote for a group are stating that they are interested in the topic and would participate (at least by reading) such a group. /* end of opinion */ By disallowing votes from people who are not "seriously interested in participating in group discussion" you disallow most of the people who would vote for the group. (Remember, calls for votes on group creation are posted to *all groups that might contain interested readers*, not just news.groups.) You are right that your change would prevent (those rare until sci.aquaria) people who vote frivolously, but this is done by preventing people who would be voting in a most appropriate manner. I can't see any way to prevent voting because "Joe says I should", that doesn't also prevent voting because "they finally got around to proposing a group that I'm interested in". -- 80386 - hardware demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | John Macdonald EMS/LIM - software demonstrating the fractal nature of warts. | jmm@eci386
craig@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson) (11/21/89)
In article <48535@bbn.COM> mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard) writes: >In other words, membership in the Usenet parliament would be restricted >to those who have acquired a sense of Usenet social norms. Of course, >as an interested party and veteran of comp.graphics your expert >testimony would be invaluable during the discussion period. >-- >void *Wayne_Mesard(); Mesard@BBN.COM BBN, Cambridge, MA Membership in the Usenet House of Lords should be restricted to those that bear the financial responsibility for maintaining a site. Or that person(s)' designate. And there shouldn't be a House of Commons. A registered site would be eligible to have a representative. If you don't agree with your representative's viewpoints, establish your own manor, register it, and become the representative. /craig Craig S. Wilson | Democracy |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig Com Squared Systems, Inc | is not a |craig@c2s.mn.org 2520 Pilot Knob Road | spectator |(612) 452-9522 voice Mendota Heights MN 55120 | sport. |(612) 452-3607 fax