karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (11/15/89)
>From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) >Subject: On Voting Guidelines >Message-ID: <6853@ficc.uu.net> >Date: 7 Nov 89 20:19:29 GMT Jeff Daiell writes: >OK, there's a question on how to vote against all possible names >in a given hierarchy. How about this: > >Question One: > > This group should be in: > > sci ___ > rec ___ > > >Question Two: > > The name should be: > > aquarium > aquaria > fish.domestic I think that this is a *great* idea. It gives so much flexibility to the naming process. If you add a third question at the top, "Should a group for this topic be created?", then I can't figure out any reason why the naming and voting processes couldn't be combined. You could also give numbers to prioritize names in order of preference if you were voting "yes" to creation of the group; if you were voting"no," you could just put "no." To use the examples above: Question One: Should a group be created for discussing technical aspects of aquarium keeping (Yes or No)? Yes Question Two: This group should be in: sci _2_ (or "No") rec _1_ Question Three: The name should be: aquarium _2_ aquaria _1_ fish.domestic no This is a bit simplistic, but it gives the general idea, and I think that it could be incorporated into the voting schemes that are currently under scrutiny/debate. I think that it qualifies as "simple" enough to use, although it would be more work for the group champion or neutral vote overseer to tally the votes. As for verification, it certainly wouldn't be any worse than our current system, where a vote can disappear faster than you can say "No on sci.aquaria." I'll be interested to read ideas/complaints about this. I also like Peter da Silva's format for showing vote results. I find it very clear and sensible. One more thing. Regarding the hierarchical system that we have now: I wish that it were possible to have the system be more like an index than its current arrangement, but I've come to realize that arranging groups in hierarchies is very useful for system administrators, who are busy and can use all helpful measures. I disagree with the people who are saying that the name of a group isn't important; you just have to try to find something in a book that has a lousy index to know that this statement just isn't true. Words communicate meaning, and effective communication cuts down on time--a valuable commodity--as well as misunderstanding. Language is powerful. The more accurate and clear, the better, IMO. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Robert Frost