markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber) (11/14/89)
[OK, one last time (I promise). Due to popular demand, I've added an option
to respond to the survey using STV, and clarified the description of the
"Any Change" option. I also added the 100 NO votes to veto a new group
proposal. I think I have all of the most popular options covered at this
point, so no more write-in votes, please. Thanks to all of you who have
responded (over 50 so far). If you have already sent a MAUVE-style
response, please consider sending me an STV-style response as well. Survey
closes midnight on November 21, the results should be posted sometime after
Thanksgiving. ]
[Would someone please send me a description of how to analyze STV ballots?]
Introduction
Over the past few months, it has become obvious that the current newsgroup
creation guidelines, which were instituted for a smaller, more homogeneous
USENET are not meeting the requirements of the larger, more diverse network
that we have today and will have in the future. Recent examples of the problems
encountered include the debates over the creation of the sci.aquaria,
sci.skeptic, and misc.headlines.unitex newsgroups. The procedures, as they
exist, work well for non-controversial groups, but do not allow for
resolution of issues when a consensus cannot be reached. The major issues
which repeatedly crop up are 1) Whether a new group should be formed for
a specified topic, or the topic should be contained in an existing, more
broadly-based group, and 2) What the name of the group should be, and in
which hierarchy it should be (sci, rec, talk, misc, etc). Which hierarchy
a group is in is important in that it may affect how widely a group is
distributed. Many sites which have limited newsfeeds do not participate
in all of the hierarchies. Their news administrators do not take the
time to consider each group on its own merits, and depend on the accurate
classification of groups within the different hierarchies. The existence of
USENET depends on the cooperation of the participating sites. The dissension
over the content and names of the groups on USENET could lead to fragmentation
of the network, and lessen the usefulness of the net. Also, many of the
most knowledgeable and interesting people on the net are being distracted from
contributing to individual newsgroups, which is the real purpose of the net.
I am therefore volunteering to run a survey to see what changes, if any,
people would like to see to the newsgroup creation voting guidelines. I
have a well-connected site, which should be accessible from both internet
and UUCP sites. My primary motivation is to cut down the amount of dissension
(and net traffic) in news.groups. Persons who wish to participate in this
survey are requested to familiarize themselves with the current newsgroup
creation procedures, which may be found in news.announce.newusers in
article <8544@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> "How to Create a New Newsgroup". A new
set of introductory files were just posted (Updated: 6 Nov 1989), so the
guidelines as they now exist should be available on most systems. If this
article is not available to you, try to obtain it from a neighboring site,
or send me mail and I will send it to you. It may also be helpful to catch
up on the discussion in news.groups.
Summary of Proposed Changes
A number of changes, both minor and wide-ranging have been suggested. Here
is a summary of most of the suggestions:
1) Change the YES vs. NO requirements. Currently, a new group will be
created if it receives 100 more YES votes than NO votes. It has been
suggested that the number be raised to 200, or that it be changed to
2:1 YES to NO ratio. Another suggestion would be to have less restrictive
requirements for moderated groups vs. unmoderated groups. One additional
proposal would be to have a no-vote threshold which would veto controversial
groups (100 no votes kills a group, for example).
2) Separate elections for the name of the group and the existence of the group.
The current guidelines say that the election should not be held until there
is general agreement on the name of the group, but does not give a procedure
for resolving disagreement. A separate preliminary election could be held to
determine the name of the group in all cases, or only in the case of a
popular group which fails to achieve the required YES vs. NO requirements.
3) Simultaneous elections for the name of the group and the existence of the
group. The guidelines currently prohibit the transfer of votes to other similar
proposals, so only one name can be voted on at a time. Several schemes have
been proposed which would allow ballots containing multiple group names. One
such proposal is the Multiple Allocated Universal Voting and Elimination
(MAUVE) scheme, in which the voter indicates via a YES or NO the group name(s)
which would be acceptable or unacceptable. Another alternative is the Single
Transferable Vote (STV) scheme, where the voter ranks the group names from
most acceptable to least acceptable. Both of these plans could include a
"No group" and "Any Group" option, which would allow the voter to vote
for or against the existence of the group, no matter what name was chosen.
4) Centralized control of newsgroup naming and creation. It has been suggested
that a Newsgroup committee be formed to choose names for and create new
groups. The membership of this committee could be determined by the site
administrators, or by the net at large. The decisions of this committee could
be appealed to and over-ridden by a vote of the net at large. Taken to the
extreme, this function could be performed by a single individual, a "Newsgroup
Czar". Note that it is no longer possible to revive the so-called "Backbone
Cabal", an informal committee of key-site administrators, as the network no
longer has a single main distribution channel (backbone). USENET currently
relies on both the internet and uucp networks for news distribution.
5) Independent vote-counters at well connected sites. Currently, the
proposer of the new group is the one who collects and counts the ballots.
This opens the door to appearances of conflict of interest. Also, the
proposer may not have the the most reliable connections to the rest of
the net, which can lead to lost or rejected votes. A committee of volunteers
with well-connected machines and standardized vote-counting software
could be created to collect and analyze ballots.
6) Trial newsgroups. Before a new, permanent group is created, a trial
group could be created to see if sufficient interest for the new group
really exists.
Survey Instructions
I am trying to use this survey to accomplish two goals, 1) Gather information
on the types of changes peoples would like to see, and 2) Determine how
useful the MAUVE and STV voting schemes are. Therefore, I am asking that
you send in both MAUVE and STV responses to this survey.
For the MAUVE response, send in a ballot showing what type of change(s) would
be acceptable or unacceptable. If you don't feel strongly one way or the other
about a particular change, mark you ballot "ABSTAIN" or leave out that line
completely. If you feel that no change is required, vote for "No change".
If you feel that any change would be an improvement, but don't have the
time or the interest to sort through the proposals, vote for "Any Change",
which is functionally equivalent to voting YES for all the proposals,
except for "no change". A sample ballot might look like this:
1a) Raise NO vote threshold to 200 YES
1b) Change to 2:1 Yes:No ratio YES
1c) Less restrictive requirements for moderated groups YES
1d) 100 NO's vetoes a new group NO
2a) Hold preliminary name vote for all groups NO
2b) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups NO
3a) MAUVE multiple voting scheme ABSTAIN
3b) STV multiple voting scheme YES
4a) Newsgroup Committee ABSTAIN
4b) Newgroup Czar NO
5) Independent vote counters YES
6) Trial Newsgroups NO
7) No change NO
8) Any change NO
For the STV response, please send in a ballot ranking the different proposals.
Rank the change that you feel would be most beneficial as 1, then work your
way down to the least beneficial. If you feel that some of the proposed
changes are worse than no change at all, then rank "No Change" ahead
of the proposals which you feel are counter-productive. I don't think that
the "any change" option is meaningful in this case, so I've left it out.
A sample ballot might look like this:
1a) Raise NO vote threshold to 200 [01]
1b) Change to 2:1 Yes:No ratio [02]
1c) Less restrictive requirements for moderated groups [07]
1d) 100 NO's vetoes a new group [08]
2a) Hold preliminary name vote for all groups [09]
2b) Hold name vote for popular but controversial groups [10]
3a) MAUVE multiple voting scheme [04]
3b) STV multiple voting scheme [03]
4a) Newsgroup Committee [05]
4b) Newgroup Czar [11]
5) Independent vote counters [12]
6) Trial Newsgroups [13]
7) No change [06]
I will be counting these by hand, so don't worry about the exact syntax,
Just make it clear what proposal(s) you are for or against. I'll run this
for a week, so send in those ballots before midnight, Nov. 21. I would
like to get as many opinions as possible, so I will be reposting this
message several times during the survey period, and posting it to other
groups as well. Send your completed ballots to:
--
Mark H. Weber | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM
Unisys - Great Valley Labs | UUCP: ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw
Paoli, PA USA (215) 648-7111 | ...!uunet!cbmvax!burdvax!gvlv2!markw