jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) (06/23/89)
In article <3486@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <1528@stl.stc.co.uk> "David Wright" <dww@stl.stc.co.uk> writes: > > [...] > >>I think that in the event of a topical group >>creation, where there is good reason to move faster than usual, it should >>be possible to create the group as soon as enough votes come in. > > The problem with this is that there is no good way to determine whether >there is "good reason to move faster than usual". I am NOT comfortable with >the person proposing the group making this decision; nor do I want the >responsibility for deciding this myself. If it's topical, create it in >alt while the creation process for the main net goes on. > >--Greg This idea of a "group that is too urgent for normal guidline timeframes" comes up regularily. Comp.sys.next was a successful example of this type, while sci.fusion (or wherever it ended up) was not acted upon in this manner and has been created just in time for the need to have disipated. This suggests an alternative that might be worth considering. Why not set up an alternate newsgroup called tmp? It would be used for two different categories of groups. The first category occurs when a topic is strongly supported as "urgent". It would be allowed to have such a group created in the tmp hierarchy. (I will leave for further discussion the question of how we get agreement that a group really is urgent and thus is eligible for the tmp hierarchy.) However, part of the charter of an urgent group created in the tmp hierarchy would be that it would automatically be deleted in any of three circumstances. (Automatically meaning that no vote is required, not that the news software would magically make it go away.) The three conditions would be any of: 1) two months have past and there is no serious discussion about creating a permanent group for the topic 2) three months have past and there is no vote in progress for the topic 3) four months have past Four months would allow the group to exist without any further discussion for long enough to determine its viability, and still leave time for a normal guideline-following discussion and vote for its permanent home. The second category occurs when a tmp group is created for a known temporary purpose (e.g. the "new coke"/"classic coke" discussion would have been an obvious candidate for a tmp group). Since this type of group is intended to be deleted as soon as its charter purpose has been fulfilled, there is no point in having the time limit cast in stone (i.e. it would not necessarily be four months as for category 1, but would be determined on a case by case basis). If such a group florishes unexpectedly, then a proposal could be raised to create a permanent home for it. Otherwise, it just be removed when its expressed purpose expired. One example might be tmp.olympics, which would be created in mid-July every leap year, and removed in mid- September. Another example might be tmp.look+feel, for discussion of the various lawsuits currently in progress; with an unspecified termination time (since court cases can drag on even longer than vi/emacs wars). By virute of its name and charter, a tmp group is intended to be removed in a short time. This gets around one common objection to creating a new group hastily - "but its so hard to remove a group once it's created". Obviously there would have to be some sort of generally accepted rules about when the group goes away. For that reason, I am more comfortable about category one above - it has clear, objectively determinable rules for termination; category two with vague termination criteria could lead to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't agree that it has outlived its charter. (The tmp.olympic example above clearly has a better charter in this regard than the tmp.look+feel, and I think that tmp.look+feel is actually a bad candidate for a tmp group for this reason.) ... I could probably say more, but I don't want to put you all to sleep before you get a chance to follow up to what I've said so far ... -- John Macdonald
rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty Carruth) (07/01/89)
In article <282@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: ... > Why not >set up an alternate newsgroup called tmp?... I like it! >The first category occurs when a topic is strongly supported as "urgent". ... >(I will leave for further discussion the question of how we get agreement >that a group really is urgent and thus is eligible for the tmp hierarchy.) ... > category two with vague termination criteria could lead >to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't >agree that it has outlived its charter. How about an absolute maximum life of 6 months or a year? When the expiration date comes around, if there is still enough interest then it would be time to discuss it in n.g and vote on making a permanent place in the permanent space. >... I could probably say more, but I don't want to put you all to sleep >before you get a chance to follow up to what I've said so far ... I'm awake, I promizzzz :-) >John Macdonald As far as 'what makes a group urgent' - one possibility which I can think of is to require recieving x number of votes for its creation within y number of days. (we could also make it x more yes than no) I hate to make this kind of suggestion, as I can see the flame wars already, but I doubt that anybody will settle for an 'urgency czar' who would make the decision. Any other ideas? ---------- Rusty Carruth UUCP:{uunet,boulder}!cadnetix!rusty DOMAIN: rusty@cadnetix.com Daisy/Cadnetix Corp. (303) 444-8075\ 5775 Flatiron Pkwy. \ Boulder, Co 80301 Radio: N7IKQ 'home': P.O.B. 461 \ Lafayette, CO 80026
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (07/06/89)
In article <8670@cadnetix.COM> rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty Carruth) writes: >In article <282@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >... >> Why not >>set up an alternate newsgroup called tmp?... > >I like it! At first, I didn't like this idea because of the difficulty of removing groups in practice. I still think that difficulty will somehow need to be addressed before a tmp heirarchy could work. But I do like the idea of being able to create groups KNOWING that they WILL be removed after a known, fixed amount of time. A lot of flame wars (and crap that I get in the mail) such as resulted from something like sci.physics.fakery (oops, I mean sci.physics.fusion! :-) could be eliminated. What I envision "tmp" could be used for is a place to have topical discussions while a vote is held on a permanent home for the topic. What I *don't* want to see it used for is creating groups that fail to pass a vote, or just to get around the normal time it takes to go through the "official" group creation procedure. That is what the "alt" heirarchy is for. It should be restricted to TOPICAL subjects, where the discussion might be severely impacted by a long delay in getting it started. As an example, sci.physics.fusion was topical, rec.music.dylan isn't. >> category two with vague termination criteria could lead >>to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't >>agree that it has outlived its charter. This is easily fixed, by setting a date ahead of time when the group will be deleted. A time limit that will apply to ALL groups created under tmp. No flames, no arguments. The group proponents would have that long to get a group created in the "official" heirarchy. If this attempt fails either the group gets created in "alt" or disappears altogether. > >How about an absolute maximum life of 6 months or a year? OK, let's see: an official group creation, according to the creation guidelines, takes from 49 to 65 days (14-30 days discussion, 30 days voting, 5 days vote verification). So, I think that 65 days is a reasonable maximum, with creation of a tmp group being an automatic call for discussion on the creation of a permanent group for that topic (note that a call for discussion does not necessarily lead to a vote being held or a group being created; it may be that there are some topical subjects that will really be of only passing interest). This allows enough time to go through the official creation process before the tmp group is removed, but NOT enough time so that groups that fail to go through the creation process can hang around forever. >When the >expiration date comes around, if there is still enough interest then >it would be time to discuss it in n.g and vote on making a permanent >place in the permanent space. This ought to be done BEFORE the expire time comes around. Expiring a group will never work unless it can be done according to rigid rules that the site admins on the net have voluntarily agreed to follow and which cannot be argued with (which means they need to be SIMPLE). >As far as 'what makes a group urgent' That is, of course, the rub. In order for tmp to work, I think the following things need to be addressed (obvious, but at least openly stated here): 1) We have to make sure that tmp groups really do expire and don't hang around indefinitely. 2) We have to come up with a way of defining what is "topical". I don't see any really good way of doing this other than empowering one person or small group of persons to decide this. (I am not volunteering myself for this; I will already have enough to do with the group creation process if I become moderator of news.announce.newgroups which is currently being voted on) It needs to be something that will limit the number of groups that live under tmp at any one time; if the tmp namespace gets too cluttered, it loses its usefulness. 3) We have to come up with a set of definitions that will encourage every site that carries sci, comp, etc. to also carry tmp. Otherwise we've just got another alt and why bother with tmp, just create the topical groups under alt as now happens. --Greg
david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) (07/06/89)
I've been ignoring this conversation but now I've just gotta ask ...
why doesn't alt fit all the things you want tmp to do?
Is it because alt is outside the jurisdiction of the rule making
powers of the mainline Usenet? If so, weeell, I see the point
and mumble something about silly politics...
--
<- David Herron; an MMDF guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<-
<- New word for the day: Obnoxity -- an act of obnoxiousnesswoods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (07/06/89)
In article <12066@s.ms.uky.edu> david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: >why doesn't alt fit all the things you want tmp to do? For the simple reason that only about half the net gets "alt". >Is it because alt is outside the jurisdiction of the rule making >powers of the mainline Usenet? If so, weeell, I see the point >and mumble something about silly politics... You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact that everyone WILLINGLY follows the newsgroup creation procedures, and the unbelievable number of votes that have already come in in only 7 days on news.announce.newgroups, show that most people out there who care don't think the "politics" are "silly". In actuality, tmp also has one major difference from ordinary alt groups: groups under tmp will be created KNOWING they will be deleted after a fixed amount of time. This currently does not apply to "alt". --Greg
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) (07/08/89)
In article <3620@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: }In article <8670@cadnetix.COM> rusty@cadnetix.COM (Rusty Carruth) writes: }>In article <282@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: }>... }>> Why not }>>set up an alternate newsgroup called tmp?... }> }>I like it! } } At first, I didn't like this idea because of the difficulty of removing }groups in practice. I still think that difficulty will somehow need to be }addressed before a tmp heirarchy could work. There is no difficulty in removing a group - it is a simple control message. When part of the official charter of any tmp group is an explicit time limit, then there is not much cause for anyone to object when a rmgroup is done at the appropriate time. The main problem may be seeing 200 different rmgroup messages all bouncing around the entire network on X-day as 200 system administrators get a chance to be backboner-for-a-day. } But I do like the idea of being }able to create groups KNOWING that they WILL be removed after a known, fixed }amount of time. A lot of flame wars (and crap that I get in the mail) such }as resulted from something like sci.physics.fakery (oops, I mean }sci.physics.fusion! :-) could be eliminated. Exactly what I felt. } What I envision "tmp" could be used for is a place to have topical }discussions while a vote is held on a permanent home for the topic. That's sort of a cross between the two different possibilities I originally suggested (1) urgently needed groups which are "certain" to eventually get a permanent home and which are disrupting discussion elsewhere, and (2) known temporary topical discussions which are certain to never need a permanent home (but for which it may be difficult to come up with a good time limit a priori). } What I }*don't* want to see it used for is creating groups that fail to pass a }vote, Agreed. } or just to get around the normal time it takes to go through the }"official" group creation procedure. I don't mind this in exceptional cases, but it should not be the rule. } That is what the "alt" heirarchy is for. }It should be restricted to TOPICAL subjects, where the discussion might be }severely impacted by a long delay in getting it started. As an example, }sci.physics.fusion was topical, rec.music.dylan isn't. I still see two topical categories - those that *will* fade, and those that will not but are urgently needed. }>> category two with vague termination criteria could lead }>>to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't }>>agree that it has outlived its charter. } } This is easily fixed, by setting a date ahead of time when the group will }be deleted. A time limit that will apply to ALL groups created under tmp. }No flames, no arguments. The group proponents would have that long to get }a group created in the "official" heirarchy. If this attempt fails either the }group gets created in "alt" or disappears altogether. This works fine for type (1) groups - either they fulfilled their promise and a regular group has been established, or they have not and thereby have failed. However, it is not so easy with type (2). The "classic" example is New Coke. If it had been created as a tmp group with a two month charter, there would have been a huge uproar if it got deleted a week before Coka-Cola capitulated and re-introduced Coke Classic. (The timing may be off here, but in some future short term group, such a timing may come to pass.) I would suggest that there be a fairly large time limit on type (2) groups unless there is a known-in-advance time limit (my previous example of the Olympics). Perhaps nine months would be about right - if it is still vigourous after seven months, then people could decide to try and make it a permanent group despite its apparent temporary nature. }> }>How about an absolute maximum life of 6 months or a year? } } OK, let's see: an official group creation, according to the creation }guidelines, takes from 49 to 65 days (14-30 days discussion, 30 days voting, }5 days vote verification). So, I think that 65 days is a reasonable maximum, }with creation of a tmp group being an automatic call for discussion on the }creation of a permanent group for that topic (note that a call for discussion }does not necessarily lead to a vote being held or a group being created; it }may be that there are some topical subjects that will really be of only }passing interest). This allows enough time to go through the official creation }process before the tmp group is removed, but NOT enough time so that groups }that fail to go through the creation process can hang around forever. I suggested four months for groups that are expected to become permanent. This allows some time for the tmp group to operate and be observed before a vote is forced. If there is a demonstrable lack of volume after a month and a half, then that later might fail, where an earlier vote would have possibly succeeded. }>When the }>expiration date comes around, if there is still enough interest then }>it would be time to discuss it in n.g and vote on making a permanent }>place in the permanent space. } } This ought to be done BEFORE the expire time comes around. Expiring a }group will never work unless it can be done according to rigid rules that }the site admins on the net have voluntarily agreed to follow and which cannot }be argued with (which means they need to be SIMPLE). Agreed - my four month period was chosen to allow an observation period, a discussion period, a vote, and creation time in a non-hurried fashion to occur *before* the tmp group was scheduled to die, with earlier cutoff if the creation attempt had clearly bogged down. }>As far as 'what makes a group urgent' } } That is, of course, the rub. How about an amplification of Rusty Carruth's suggestion. I would suggest that we allow a special fast vote for tmp groups. It could take place without discussion before the call to vote, and require 50 more yes than no votes in ten days, or 75 more yes than no votes earlier to cut it even shorter. } In order for tmp to work, I think the following }things need to be addressed (obvious, but at least openly stated here): } }1) We have to make sure that tmp groups really do expire and don't hang around } indefinitely. Agreed. }2) We have to come up with a way of defining what is "topical". I don't see } any really good way of doing this other than empowering one person or small } group of persons to decide this. (I am not volunteering myself for this; } I will already have enough to do with the group creation process if I } become moderator of news.announce.newgroups which is currently being voted } on) It needs to be something that will limit the number of groups that live } under tmp at any one time; if the tmp namespace gets too cluttered, it } loses its usefulness. An alternative is the fast vote suggested above. }3) We have to come up with a set of definitions that will encourage every site } that carries sci, comp, etc. to also carry tmp. Otherwise we've just got } another alt and why bother with tmp, just create the topical groups under } alt as now happens. Agreed. I think we're well on the way to doing just that. Just imagine, no more "we need it now" flames, that should reduce news.groups volume by 10% or more. }--Greg -- John Macdonald
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (07/12/89)
In article <292@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >There is no difficulty in removing a group - it is a simple control message. Ah, if only that were the case... It is a "simple control message" that must be explicitly acted upon by every site administrator on the net. Not as simple as it looks. >When part of the official charter of any tmp group is an explicit time >limit, then there is not much cause for anyone to object when a rmgroup is >done at the appropriate time. Oh, yeah? I'll bet you 10:1 odds that if the group is still active when the "agreed-upon" time for expiration comes along, there will probably be more flames posted than the entire volume of the group up to that point if anyone attempts to remove the group. Were you around for the net.wobegon debacle? Admittedly in that example there was never any agreement to remove the group ahead of time, but I'm willing to bet it won't make any difference. People will point to current activity and claim (rightly so) that the group is still needed. >The main problem may be seeing 200 different >rmgroup messages all bouncing around the entire network on X-day as 200 >system administrators get a chance to be backboner-for-a-day. As long as all the messages request the same action, this is really not a big problem. >That's sort of a cross between the two different possibilities I >originally suggested (1) urgently needed groups which are "certain" >to eventually get a permanent home and which are disrupting discussion >elsewhere, and (2) known temporary topical discussions which are certain >to never need a permanent home (but for which it may be difficult to come >up with a good time limit a priori). This is where we disagree; I don't think we NEED newsgroups for type (2) groups. For one thing how do we know the difference between (1) and (2)? That is what voting is supposed to determine! The proper way to deal with type (2) groups is to let them get voted into existence, but then have a way to rmgroup inactive groups from the regular heirarchy. I think much of the opposition to the creation of new groups would go away if we could really count on getting rid of inactive groups. > } or just to get around the normal time it takes to go through the > }"official" group creation procedure. > >I don't mind this in exceptional cases, but it should not be the rule. Again, how do we define what is "exceptional"? Remember the flame wars over sci.physics.fusion? They would have been MUCH worse if we didn't have an alt.fusion to post things to. Now that it looks like there wasn't really any cold fusion, we would certainly look like fools for defining this as "exceptional" :-) >I still see two topical categories - those that *will* fade, and those that >will not but are urgently needed. But how do we know which is which? If it's really going to fade that quickly, what's wrong with discussing it in an existing group? If it isn't going to fade that quickly, readers of the related group in which the postings are appearing will be the first to vote YES for creating a permanent home for the topic. > }>>to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't > }>>agree that it has outlived its charter. > } > } This is easily fixed, by setting a date ahead of time when the group will > }be deleted. >This works fine for type (1) groups - either they fulfilled their promise >and a regular group has been established, or they have not and thereby >have failed. However, it is not so easy with type (2). The real problem is that there is no way to determine ahead of time which is type (1) and which is type (2). If we made a distinction whereby one type has an enforced time limit and another does not, can't you already see the flame wars over which classification a given topic should get? This might itself defeat the purpose of having tmp groups at all. >I suggested four months for groups that are expected to become permanent. >This allows some time for the tmp group to operate and be observed before >a vote is forced. If there is a demonstrable lack of volume after a month >and a half, then that later might fail, where an earlier vote would have >possibly succeeded. OK, just to show that I'm not just blindly disagreeing with everything you say, I can see the point here. In fact sci.physics.fusion is a good example of this. >How about an amplification of Rusty Carruth's suggestion. I would suggest >that we allow a special fast vote for tmp groups. It could take place >without discussion before the call to vote, and require 50 more yes than no >votes in ten days, or 75 more yes than no votes earlier to cut it even shorter. This might be worth considering. --Greg
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) (07/18/89)
In article <3677@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >In article <292@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >>There is no difficulty in removing a group - it is a simple control message. > > Ah, if only that were the case... It is a "simple control message" that >must be explicitly acted upon by every site administrator on the net. >Not as simple as it looks. Many sites are configured to act on such a message automatically. Many others will have site administrators that generally are up-to-date on news group policies and would act on such a message fairly quickly. Even if the previous two groups only hit 30% of the network, it would disrupt distribution of the group enough to effectively kill it. In fact, 2% would do if it were the RIGHT 2% - start with uunet... Does any remnant of the backbone mailing list remain? >>When part of the official charter of any tmp group is an explicit time >>limit, then there is not much cause for anyone to object when a rmgroup is >>done at the appropriate time. > > Oh, yeah? I'll bet you 10:1 odds that if the group is still active when >the "agreed-upon" time for expiration comes along, there will probably be >more flames posted than the entire volume of the group up to that point if >anyone attempts to remove the group. Were you around for the net.wobegon >debacle? Admittedly in that example there was never any agreement to remove >the group ahead of time, but I'm willing to bet it won't make any difference. >People will point to current activity and claim (rightly so) that the group >is still needed. Oh, of course, the fact that there is not much cause for objection has never had much to with whether there is objection. It would be a good idea to have an automatic posting (perhaps bi-weekly) to each tmp newsgroup specifying 1. the current state of efforts to convert it to a permanent group, and 2. the automatic group cancellation time for each of the possible states e.g. This group (tmp.example) is in the tmp news hierarchy and thus is under an absolute sentence of death. If you believe that this group will still be serving a useful function at the end of its official lifetime (shown below), then get involved NOW with converting it to a permanent group. The current status of effort to convert this group to a permanent group is: DISCUSSION IN PROGRESS The remaining lifetime for this group is: Status Appropriate Kill Date ------ --------------------- no discussion already passed discussion in progress 1 week (Jul 24) vote in progress 5 weeks (Aug 24) vote completed 7 weeks (Sep 7) >>That's sort of a cross between the two different possibilities I >>originally suggested (1) urgently needed groups which are "certain" >>to eventually get a permanent home and which are disrupting discussion >>elsewhere, and (2) known temporary topical discussions which are certain >>to never need a permanent home (but for which it may be difficult to come >>up with a good time limit a priori). > > This is where we disagree; I don't think we NEED newsgroups for type (2) >groups. For one thing how do we know the difference between (1) and (2)? >That is what voting is supposed to determine! The proper way to deal with >type (2) groups is to let them get voted into existence, but then have a >way to rmgroup inactive groups from the regular heirarchy. I think much of >the opposition to the creation of new groups would go away if we could really >count on getting rid of inactive groups. Most of the time, the distinction between type 1 and 2 will be obvious. The "New Coke" issue is a clear type 2 - there was no way to tell how long it would last, but it would certainly die down eventually. Chernobyl is another type 2. Cold fusion was a clear type 1 until we are able to apply hindsight and realize that it was actually a type 2. The difficulty in determining when such a type 2 group has died down is definitely going to cause problems, agreed. Perhaps, a tmp.misc group could be used for the remaining trickles of otherwise dried up type 2 groups. This would mean that people who are still using the group don't feel completely cut out. >>I still see two topical categories - those that *will* fade, and those that >>will not but are urgently needed. > > But how do we know which is which? If it's really going to fade that >quickly, what's wrong with discussing it in an existing group? If it isn't >going to fade that quickly, readers of the related group in which the postings >are appearing will be the first to vote YES for creating a permanent home >for the topic. Being wrong is not necessarily a problem. If we incorrectly label something type 1, then there is still the 2 to 4 month period in which it is being converted to a permanent group to determine that it was a mistake and vote down the permanent group. If someone had started a vote for sci.fusion through the normal voting process quickly enough, we might have had it officially created as a permanent newsgroup just before it faded away. As it is, there was enough time wasted trying to bypass the normal voting process that it didn't get created. The tmp.* hierarchy might have affected this process either way, in this instance - either a tmp group would have been created quickly, and then a permanent group voted on as fast as possible (since nobody would be kept busy fighting the system), or the tmp group would have been created and during the leisurely conversion process, the need for it disappeared before the vote completed. >> }>>to flames and bad feelings if a group is removed when some people don't >> }>>agree that it has outlived its charter. >> } >> } This is easily fixed, by setting a date ahead of time when the group will >> }be deleted. >>This works fine for type (1) groups - either they fulfilled their promise >>and a regular group has been established, or they have not and thereby >>have failed. However, it is not so easy with type (2). > > The real problem is that there is no way to determine ahead of time which >is type (1) and which is type (2). If we made a distinction whereby one type >has an enforced time limit and another does not, can't you already see the >flame wars over which classification a given topic should get? This might >itself defeat the purpose of having tmp groups at all. Yes, this is a difficult problem. On the other hand, not providing an extended duration tmp group for a clear type 2 discussion will ensure that a permanent group gets created to handle the discussion that is *clearly going to last beyond the 4 month deadline*. It will not be any easier to get rid of a permanent group than it is to get rid of an faded tmp group. How about the following for type 2 tmp groups - they must have a normal vote at regular intervals. They are eligible for termination 4 months after the last successful vote to continue the group. Thus, 2 1/2 months after a successful vote, the participants of the group must organize another vote to continue it, if they feel that the purpose of the group is going to extend beyond the 4 month limit. As above, a regular bi-weekly status message would help to focus the awareness of the group participants upon their need to act to keep the group in operation. >>I suggested four months for groups that are expected to become permanent. >>This allows some time for the tmp group to operate and be observed before >>a vote is forced. If there is a demonstrable lack of volume after a month >>and a half, then that later might fail, where an earlier vote would have >>possibly succeeded. > > OK, just to show that I'm not just blindly disagreeing with everything you >say, I can see the point here. In fact sci.physics.fusion is a good example >of this. Well, as I argued above, while sci.physics.fusion would have had considerably less flamage if the tmp.* mechanism had been in place, it might have actually been created in that less confrontational environment... >>How about an amplification of Rusty Carruth's suggestion. I would suggest >>that we allow a special fast vote for tmp groups. It could take place >>without discussion before the call to vote, and require 50 more yes than no >>votes in ten days, or 75 more yes than no votes earlier to cut it even shorter. > > This might be worth considering. > >--Greg The fast vote would have to specify which set of rules it was intending to abide by - type 1 or type 2. In the borderline cases that weren't clearly in either camp, the person suggesting the vote might be well advised to have a brief discussion period before calling the vote to avoid getting too many NO votes objecting that it should be the other type. An alternative might be to call for both votes simultaneously - voters could vote for one type and against the other type if they had strong opinions about both forms, could vote for (or against) one type and not vote either way on the other type if they had no strong feelings about the second method they didn't favour, or they could vote yes (or no) for both types if they didn't care about which type it was. -- John Macdonald