bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (11/11/89)
In article <1989Nov10.045531.4549@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Thomas Lynn Egelston Ii) writes:
: I have been sitting back and watching with distaste the events of the
: past few weeks, and I have a few comments.
:
: First, I agree wholeheartedly that there is something wrong with the
: current voting system. However, as of right now, it *is* the official way
: to create a new newsgroup, and according to it, 'sci.aquaria' should be
: created.
Hidden assumption: that all should obey the results of "vote".
The net is not a democracy. And news.groups is not a parliament.
Not even the rationalizations that apply to those apply here. The
hidden assumption is false.
There is nothing whatsoever about the vote (or any vote, in any
context) that permits sysadmins to abdicate their responsibilities.
At best, the vote is an *aid* to sysadmins.
In an ideal world, a vote is conducted with due regard to the
things that will result in useful votes. When that occurs, the
sysadmin can happily and even mindlessly create the newsgroup,
regardless of his personal opinion on the subject: the result of
the vote tells him whether or not thoughtful people have found a
reasonable use for the net.
In the sci.aquaria debacle, the vote was conducted in such a way
as to result in it being worthless as an aid to sysadmins.
Thus there is no good reason to follow the results of the vote.
As I, and several others, have said, sci.aquaria will not exist
here. The vote results are meaningless. And it is obvious that,
while a group for people who are interested in aquariums would be
a good thing, the name is totally inappropriate.
Followups have been directed to news.misc.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comchip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/12/89)
According to tlegelst@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Thomas Lynn Egelston Ii): >[The] current voting system ... *is* the official way to create a >new newsgroup Bzzt. Usenet doesn't have "official" anything. No official organization, no official rules, no official enforcement, no official officials. None. >I favor a percentage, personally 2/3 Yes, for creating a newsgroup [...] Of course! Why didn't I think of that? :-) >Finally, I think it's high time we all grew up a little bit. Fat chance. This is Usenet, altogether too much like the Real World[tm] for comfort: "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." -- Albert Einstein -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip>
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/12/89)
>>I favor a percentage, personally 2/3 Yes, for creating a newsgroup [...] >Of course! Why didn't I think of that? :-) Hmm. I've been recommending that for, what, two years now? Probably the single most important reason why it's not being taken seriously.... >>Finally, I think it's high time we all grew up a little bit. >Fat chance. This is Usenet, altogether too much like the Real World[tm] >for comfort: The important thing is that we all, starting with me, start taking USENET a little less seriously. It ain't the end of the world that a group gets a stupid name. If we cooperate more and flame less, life would be nicer. In fact, the flaming only seems to occur when people decide they don't want to cooperate. Maybe there's a lesson in that. Probably not, though. Of course, the last shots haven't been taken on sci.aquaria, either. It'll be interesting to see what it's effective distribution will be. And whether it comes on when we decide it's time for a new great renaming. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes if one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (11/13/89)
As quoted from <36393@apple.Apple.COM> by chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach): +--------------- | Of course, the last shots haven't been taken on sci.aquaria, either. It'll | be interesting to see what it's effective distribution will be. And whether | it comes on when we decide it's time for a new great renaming. +--------------- Don't forget that there is a call for discussion currently open on *renaming* an existing newsgroup. If it goes to a vote and passes, it may well set a precedent. And I wouldn't consider sci.aquaria to be immune.... ++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.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/16/89)
In article <36393@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: | >>I favor a percentage, personally 2/3 Yes, for creating a newsgroup [...] | | >Of course! Why didn't I think of that? :-) | | Hmm. I've been recommending that for, what, two years now? Probably the | single most important reason why it's not being taken seriously.... You're kidding, right? Would you really want a group to pass, say, 7-2 because it got a 2/3 majority? The 100 vote requirement keeps us from getting groups with no readership. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (11/16/89)
According to davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr): >Would you really want a group to pass, say, 7-2 because it got a 2/3 >majority? The 100 vote requirement keeps us from getting groups with >no readership. Of course. The 100 vote requirement should not be weakened. Chuq's proposal (with which I agree) is to add an _additional_ 2/3 majority requirement on top of the 100 vote differential requirement. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "Did I ever tell you the Jim Gladding story about the binoculars?"