peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/10/89)
In article <11424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> djgrabin@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Joseph Grabiner) writes: > If a group passes with 100 more YES than NO votes and fewer than 100 NO > votes, then it is created with the proposed name after the usual waiting > period. > If a group passes with 100 more YES than NO votes and at least 100 NO > votes, then a new vote, by approval voting (yes/no on each proposed > name) or STV, should be held on the proposed name of the group. This is good. It avoids complexity for the majority of votes where the name is not in question, and avoids any possibility of a group being blocked by a bunch of reactionaries. But keep the option open for someone to go straight to stage two if they want. -- `-_-' 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
andrew@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andrew Vignaux) (11/12/89)
In article <11424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, David Joseph Grabiner
describes a system where the vote happens as per the current
guidelines. If the vote passes (by YES-NO>100) and there were less
than 100 NO votes the group is created. If there were more than 100
NO votes, a second naming ballot is held to choose the name from the
list of suggested names drawn up in the inevitable discussion.
If you combine this with the Karl Lehenbauer's proposal <6872@ficc.uu.net>
for two classes of "NO" votes ("NO group" and "BAD name") in the first
vote you have:
(YES - NO) > 100 and (BAD < 100) create the group
(YES - NO) > 100 and (BAD > 100) have a name ballot
(YES - NO) < 100 not enough interest
[ BAD == 100 is left "undefined". The NET will "bus error: core dump"
or turn into a butterfly. This is meant to appeal to the "anarchic"
elements :-]
People should be able to vote for both YES/NO and BAD.
The naming ballot can be made as complicated (simple approval, MAUVE,
STV) as the NET likes. Perhaps name votes could be run by a "group
name" Czar?
[ Has this proposal come up before? ]
I like this system, *especially* the delay in group creation caused by
the group proponent choosing a controversial name.
If someone wants to create a group for a relatively non-controversial
subject ASAP then it is in their best interest to pick a name that
will succeed on the first ballot.
The mythical "NO veto" voting block can only delay the creation of the
group for a month. "eniac" would still have passed with this (and any
other?) method.
Essentially, the vote only gets "complicated" if the group proponent
"ignores" NET suggestions during the discussion period as to
non-controversial names. It is certainly a good incentive to get the
name "right" for the first vote. With any luck we may never see a
naming ballot and we may never have to work out the gory details :-)
More discussion not necessarily desired but welcome :-)
Andrew
--
Domain address: andrew@comp.vuw.ac.nz Path address: ...!uunet!vuwcomp!andrewoleg@elrond.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev) (11/14/89)
In article <6907@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <11424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> djgrabin@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Joseph Grabiner) writes: >> If a group passes with 100 more YES than NO votes and at least 100 NO >> votes, then a new vote, by approval voting (yes/no on each proposed >> name) or STV, should be held on the proposed name of the group. Let me drop a fly into your ointment. If a group passes with 2500 YES votes and there are 101 NO votes, the foolishness of your suggestion will become quite apparent. And here is the second fly: proposed name is not always the subject of contention. comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac farce had nothing to do with the naming. >This is good. It avoids complexity for the majority of votes where the >name is not in question, and avoids any possibility of a group being >blocked by a bunch of reactionaries. Really? Like what happened to rec.sex? Or was that soc.sex? Or comp.sex? News.sex, perhaps? No? Perhaps it's purely coincidental that .sex group exists only in ALT, where there is no voting as such and groups come about and die off more or less by consensus. Besides, why is it that less than 100 NO votes would be considered a "bunch of reactionaries" while 100+ NO votes would not? Or are you all saying that the group, as such, should be considered as having passed, but a name vote is being held just to "make sure"? In that case, sci.aquaria would have still passed, despite a heavy opposition by a sizable "bunch of reactionaries". Excuse me, I have to go feed my fish now. -- -- Oleg Kiselev I speak for myself only. (213)337-5230