shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (11/09/89)
In article <4323@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> sartin@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Rob Sartin) writes:
%elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!alex
%elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!lambert
Could be different people or could be Alex Lambert. Not counted in 8
false YES estimate.
It's Heather Lambert and Alex Sim. Their offices are next to mine.
Yes, I asked them to vote YES on this. I explained my view of the situation,
they agreed, and voted.
(You'll find me under drynix!shafer BTW)
--
Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASAsloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (11/15/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Nov8153646@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > Yes, I asked them to vote YES on this. I explained my view of the situation, > they agreed, and voted. Gee, if I had known that we could solicit votes from people I would have rounded up a bunch of NO votes here at KU. Why I could probably have convinced 20 or 30 people here at the computer center alone, without even bothering the faculty or students. Sometimes I sort of regret being honest. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (11/16/89)
In article <18175.25612d86@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: > Why I could probably have >convinced 20 or 30 people here at the computer center alone, without even >bothering the faculty or students. Sometimes I sort of regret being honest. I can't believe the number of people that believe that campaigning and canvassing for votes is "dishonest." It may surprise some of you to know that not everyone and his pet monkey read all of the trash in news.groups and elsewhere. There are quite a few grad students at UDEL that keep aquaria and I let them know that a newsgroup was being formed for that purpose. What on God's green earth is "dishonest" about it? I suppose that you think it is "dishonest" to work for political campaigns or collect signatures on petitions and other subversive and "fraudulent" activities. What the hell is dishonest about passing along information? -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/16/89)
In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > I can't believe the number of people that believe that campaigning and > canvassing for votes is "dishonest." Well at the least it's ungentlemanly. The appropriate protocol is to inform people by posting the "call for votes" to associated groups. People who don't read news are disenfranchised, but that's reasonable... after all, they don't read news. The primary reason for creating a newsgroup is excessive volume in an inappropriate group. Or didn't you know that? That's how the guidelines are designed. They weren't designed to deal with massive politicking. That is being corrected. We're getting more and more bureaucracy, thanks to people who don't appreciate the reasons behind guidelines. Active campaigning is just a short step from something like: $ awk-F: '$2 > 100 { print $1 , "'"$5"'"}' /etc/passwd | while read X Y do forgemail -s 'Vote NO' -f $X richard@gryphon << EOF I vote NO to sci.aquaria -- $Y EOF done $ -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.) (11/16/89)
In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > I can't believe the number of people that believe that campaigning and > canvassing for votes is "dishonest." Your so right. Working at DAC we have about 35 different systems that can access the NET and NEWS. Next time I will send out local mail to all the users that I know about (about 500 engineers) and request that they vote the way I want them to on some newsgroups creation. **Come on, be real!!** Solicitations of non-NEWS reader votes runs contrary to the basic foundation of the why this vote is being taken in the first place. As far as I can tell, votes are taken to get input from those who *use* NEWS as to how they feel about the creation of a newsgroup. If someone goes outside the common channels on which the vote is being taken, to request and extract votes from persons who would not normaly vote, it is not dishonest, but it could lead to others doing it to "kill" or "pass" thier choice newsgroups. This is an extreamly bad precedent. While I am new to the "net", I knew not to do this here, Richard has been on for some time, he should have known better. I also have to ask... Richard, from what I have read, you claim you did this as a defensive measure since you percieved a threat that others were going to do this to you. It seems clear (by the vote) that the others did not do it to you. In your comments (and those from your supporters) there seems to be no "remorse" for firing the first shot (if this were a nuclear war we would really have been in trouble with you pushing the buttons) and starting what may become "the ballot box stuffing wars" on the net. While I feel that the vote should be invalidated (and I am trying to set aside my personal feelings and my vote on this issue) I am sure that there will be no invalidation of the vote. Richard has gotten what *he* wanted and in the process he has opened a can of worms that may, like Pandoras box, be responsible for the future ills of the system (no I am not predicting the distruction of the net - I am not a fatalist). He may not be a net.god, but the actions taken in this vote, by both Richard and his supporters, appear to be (in the jaundice eye of a new member to this community) very borderline if not downright improper. Politicing on the net, that's to be expected and in some ways (as much as I hate flaming) can help someone who is undeceided make up thier mind and vote. I do not like the idea in crossing some of the postings to alt.flame (that has cost me loss of face and about three hours of my time when I responded to something that was posted in news.groups, and the original poster could have sworn that he posted to alt.flame) but there isn't alot I can do about that. I do feel that we, the net users, have to address this issue of ballot box stuffing (having users who are solicitated from outside the net place votes for or against a newsgroups creation) as soon as possible (disreguarding Richard and the *.aquaira issue entirely) or the entire process may just become a moot point. [Disclaimer: These opinions belong to the author and not to MDC or DAC] [sidebar note: This is not to be considered a personal attack on Richard. I don't know him. This is an attack on the methods used to get votes for the creation of the newsgroup sci.aquaira] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | J.M. Ivler at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach, CA - VOICE: (213) 496-8727 | | INTERNET: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com | UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!devsim.mdcbbs!jmi | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) (11/16/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Nov8153646@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> (Mary Shafer) writes:
:Yes, I asked them to vote YES on this. I explained my view of the situation,
:they agreed, and voted.
:
Seems to me that a YES vote should indicate that people are willing to
read a group.
--
Sandra Jessica Smyth Believer in lost causes
toto@tank.uchicago.eduberryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (11/16/89)
In article <6985@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >The appropriate protocol is to inform people by posting the "call for votes" >to associated groups. People who don't read news are disenfranchised, but >that's reasonable... after all, they don't read news. Well I told some people who don't read much news, but DO keep fish. >The primary reason for creating a newsgroup is excessive volume in an >inappropriate group. Or didn't you know that? I see. So where was all the excessive volume when the net first got going? -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (11/17/89)
In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU>, berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > I can't believe the number of people that believe that campaigning and > canvassing for votes is "dishonest." It may surprise some of you to know > that not everyone and his pet monkey read all of the trash in news.groups > and elsewhere. There are quite a few grad students at UDEL that keep > aquaria and I let them know that a newsgroup was being formed for that > purpose. What on God's green earth is "dishonest" about it? I never said that it was dishonest to tell someone else that a vote was going on. What I object to is rounding up a bunch of friends who could care less about aquariums or newsgroups, and asking them to vote YES. To quote Mary: > Yes, I asked them to vote YES on this. I explained my view of the situation, > they agreed, and voted. That isn't "let[ting] them know that a newsgroup was being formed." That is ballot box stuffing, at least to me. Note that she didn't say that she explained the issues involved, she just told them her side of it, and asked them to vote YES, and they did. That is what I objected to. > I suppose > that you think it is "dishonest" to work for political campaigns or > collect signatures on petitions and other subversive and "fraudulent" > activities. Of course not. But a newsgroup vote isn't a political election, either. It is supposed to determine what those with an interest in the group (either the topic or the name) think about the group. If I call in a bunch of favors from friends who could care less about aquaria or newsgroup creation, that distorts the results. > What the hell is dishonest about passing along information? It depends on whether or not the information is complete. If you or Mary went to someone, carefully and fully explained the issues involved, and didn't ask for a YES or NO vote, then I have no problems. I just don't like soliciting votes from people who can't make an informed decision. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/17/89)
As quoted from <4239@nigel.udel.EDU> by berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill): +--------------- | In article <6985@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | >The primary reason for creating a newsgroup is excessive volume in an | >inappropriate group. Or didn't you know that? | | I see. So where was all the excessive volume when the net first | got going? +--------------- Since you insist: The CURRENT primary reason for creating a newsgroup is excessive volume in an inappropriate group. I assume that you can understand that the needs of the Usenet were different back when it was just Duke and UNC instead of half the known universe. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/17/89)
> >The primary reason for creating a newsgroup is excessive volume in an > >inappropriate group. Or didn't you know that? > I see. So where was all the excessive volume when the net first > got going? I don't recall what the original group was, but it was probably spillover from mailing lists. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (11/18/89)
In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU>, berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > There are quite a few grad students at UDEL that keep > aquaria and I let them know that a newsgroup was being formed for that > purpose. What on God's green earth is "dishonest" about it? Nothing, if you told them about both rec.aquaria and sci.aquaria. Did you? ---Dan
pcr1_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Pablo) (11/18/89)
In article <3975@sbcs.sunysb.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU>, berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >> There are quite a few grad students at UDEL that keep >> aquaria and I let them know that a newsgroup was being formed for that >> purpose. What on God's green earth is "dishonest" about it? > >Nothing, if you told them about both rec.aquaria and sci.aquaria. Did you? >---Dan You see, John, what you did _was_ wrong, because even though _you_ thought that the vote was on whether sci.aquaria should exist or not, the vote was in fact _between_ sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria! Feeling ashamed yet? Okay, it was an honest mistake. Just don't do it again. Bernstein, you wouldn't know honesty if it stuck its cold, hard fingers up your nostrils and tongue-kissed you. Pablo "News.groups? You mean this isn't talk.righteous.indignation.idiots? Sorry."
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (11/18/89)
In article <4199@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: #In article <18175.25612d86@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: #> Why I could probably have #>convinced 20 or 30 people here at the computer center alone, without even #>bothering the faculty or students. Sometimes I sort of regret being honest. # #I can't believe the number of people that believe that campaigning and #canvassing for votes is "dishonest." ... ... ... ... The issue is not one of honesty but of fairness (though many people would feel that to be unfair is a form of dishonesty). The purpose of the new group ballots is to get the net user's opinion on whether the new group is a "good thing" or not. If people on both sides of the argument post articles putting their case and asking for support that's fine (so long as they don't post so many that people get fed up with them -- but that is self limiting as it will generate votes in the opposite direction!). What is seen by many (including myself) as unfair is lobbying by private mail of lots of people who do not know all the issues, are not regular readers of news.groups etc., and who thus vote on the basis of a one-sided request from someone they know, rather than on the basis of published information. Of course our guidelines do not prevent this, 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; not the end of the net, but certainly the end of newgroup voting as we know it. Let us hope that it won't come to that. Hopefully the new schemes for choosing the best name during the voting system (STV or perhaps MAUVE) will prevent future sci.aquaria problems, although they too will depend on a sense of goodwill and fairness which have become scarce in some quarters lately. Remember that generosity, goodwill and fairness were the principles upon which the net was built. Regards, "None shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (11/21/89)
In article <2421@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: > What is >seen by many (including myself) as unfair is lobbying by private mail of >lots of people who do not know all the issues, are not regular readers of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >news.groups etc., ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh my, the great unwashed horde! It may shock you to know that there are great numbers of people who have particular interests that don't have the intestinal fortitude to wade through the endless arguments in news.groups. Most of the news readers that I know read only the local info group, one or two groups of particular interest to them, and take a look at rec.humor once in a while. If I happen to know a guy who has a passion for widgets and a vote for talk.widgets is going on, I'll sure as heck tell him. I don't see why every new group has to have the obligatory opening salvo of flames from dissatisfied parties from news.groups when new groups could instead have readerships that are composed of people with a genuine interest in the topic. >and who thus vote on the basis of a one-sided request from As opposed to a two-sided request? "Hey Joe, there is a vote going on for a newsgroups called talk.widgets. I thought you might like to know." Boy, that's such a coercive tactic! You folks make it seem like there are Haitian witch doctors on the net who have bands of loyal zombies ready to do their bidding when it comes to newgroup voting. That's simply not the case and if you continue to behave in this manner, Master Richard will put a spell on you too! -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711