woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (04/10/89)
GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION (2nd draft) REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: These are guidelines that have been generally agreed upon across USENET as appropriate for following in the creating of new newsgroups in the "standard" USENET newsgroup heirarchy. They are NOT intended as guidelines for setting USENET policy other than group creations, and they are not intended to apply to "alternate" or local news heirarchies. The part of the namespace affected is comp, news, sci, misc, soc, talk, and rec, which are the most widely-distributed areas of the USENET heirarchy. Any group creation request which follows these guidelines to a successful result should be honored, and any request which fails to follow these procedures or to obtain a successful result from doing so should be dropped, except under extraordinary circumstances. The reason these are called guidelines and not absolute rules is that it is not possible to predict in advance what "extraordinary circumstances" are or how they might arise. The Discussion 1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted to news.groups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic if desired. The Followup-to: header should be set so that the actual discussion takes place only in news.groups 2) The discussion period should last for at least two weeks (14 days). 3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator will be) must be agreed upon during the discussion period, which may last up to 30 days if needed. The Vote 1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.groups and any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion might have been posted to. The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes to provided that they are on the same machine, to set up an address different than that the article was posted from to mail votes to, or to just accept replies to the call for votes article, as long as it is clearly and explicitly stated in the call for votes article how to cast a vote. 2) The voting period must last for at least 30 days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote are. The exact date that the voting period will end should be stated in the call for votes. Only votes that arrive on the vote-taker's machine prior to this date may be counted. 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). Partial vote results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for each member of the list) may not be counted. 5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote shall count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response to. In particular, a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name shall NOT be counted as a vote for or against a newsgroup with a different name or charter, a different moderated/unmoderated status or (if moderated) a different moderator. 6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar as proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not counted as votes. The Result 1) At the completion of the 30 day voting period, the vote taker must post the vote tally and the E-mail addresses and (if available) names of the votes received to news.groups and any other groups or mailing lists to which the original call for votes was posted. 2) AFTER the vote result is posted, there will be a 5 day waiting period during which the net will have a chance to correct any errors in the voter list or the voting procedure. 3) AFTER the waiting period, and if there were no serious objections that might invalidate the vote, and if 100 more YES/create votes are received than NO/don't create, a newgroup control message may be sent out. If the 100 vote margin is not met, the group should not be created and discussion of it on the net should cease. 4) A group proposal which fails the vote should not be discussed on the net again for at least 6 months.
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (04/10/89)
In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu>, woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: > > GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION (2nd draft) > > REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: ...................... > The Discussion > 3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated > or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator will be) must be agreed > upon during the discussion period, which may last up to 30 days if needed. Why should the discussion be limited to 30 days? After the 14-day period, the proposer may call for the vote, but if serious discussion is ongoing, and the creation of the group is not urgent, why close it? > The Vote I believe that there should be an official vote-counting procedure not run by the proposer. This should be done in such a way as to minimize mail problems. Considering how much bounced mail I have had, and how many messages which fell into the bit bucket, and the various degrees of connectivity of the possible proposers' sites, the sysadms should look into this problem. Also, the vote counter is supposed to be unbiased in every other election procedure I have seen. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (04/11/89)
In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: | 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net | for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and | proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for | each member of the list) may not be counted. As I have mentioned before, in the cause of reducing the cost to the net *any* list which has some number of readers (200 maybe) should be allowed to become a group by having the moderator post the names of the readers as yes votes. I don't believe that "it's more convenient by mail" is a reason to keep sending that many copies, and I don't think the argument of "adequate coverage in other groups" should be allowed to add to the phone bills of the backbone sites, if there are N people who feel that more coverage is needed. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (04/11/89)
>In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > >| 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net [ more about how votes would & wouldn't count ...] In article <13561@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1 (bill davidsen) writes: > As I have mentioned before, in the cause of reducing the cost to the >net *any* list which has some number of readers (200 maybe) should be >allowed to become a group by having the moderator post the names of the >readers as yes votes. But only if the majority of the mailing list agrees and only if they agree to have their names posted as yes votes. The mailing list I coordinate has soundly defeated every overture I have made about becoming a news group. >I don't believe that "it's more convenient by >mail" is a reason to keep sending that many copies, and I don't think >the argument of "adequate coverage in other groups" should be allowed >to add to the phone bills of the backbone sites, if there are N people >who feel that more coverage is needed. I agree that news is far more efficient than mail. There are still some reasons more compelling than convenience for staying a mailing list. I tried to overcome one of them (no new access) by agreeing to continue to mail to those addressees. That only partially defused the objections. Our list engages in correspondence that would be contrued as blatant commercialism by the net at large. We even encourage it because it gives them an opportunity to get good used equipment from a source better known than Joe I. Poster and we've been able to use our numbers to arrange very attractive prices for a group buy ($25 FOB dest for a $65 FOB ship point manual). I'll repeat my agreement with Bill that the news software is lots more efficient and cost effective to reach a lot of people, but in addition to what I've cited, there are other "privacy" issues. If a mailing list was of special interest to German culture, it might choose to conduct itself in German, try that on the net! In the case of the list I coordinate we deal in hot gossip (not often, but always hot) that the contributors would not send in if they felt that distribution was wider spread. In support of Bill's point, I think that if the required number of mailing list members agree to a news group, I think the voting should be waived. The issue of a choice of moderator is another question. It would appear obvious that the existing mailing list coordinator would be the choice for moderator, but they might not want it. Bill and Paul Vixie would do a good job moderating a news group based on what I've read on their mailing lists, but I'd be a lousy moderator based on what I let cross through mine. Admittedly, the mailing list members moderate themselves since I don't, but that would not be the case if it was opened up to the net at large. Finally (mercifully!), does it make any sense to require that a mailing list be in existance for some period of time before being eligible to convert? I'm thinking about that list that Karl Kleinpaste started (and scuttled when it became noisy and unwieldy) as a news admin only alternative to news.admin. It grew to some large number of people but had to be dismantled when it didn't serve its intended purpose. It wasn't Karl's fault, but was an example of a pile of people that grew (and dissolved) quickly. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: {texbell,att,killer,sun!daver,cs.utexas.edu}!ssbn!bill
jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Jim Wright) (04/11/89)
In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: | | GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION (2nd draft) | | The Result | | 1) At the completion of the 30 day voting period, the vote taker must post | the vote tally and the E-mail addresses and (if available) names of the | votes received to news.groups and any other groups or mailing lists to | which the original call for votes was posted. YOW! Do you really want a list of 300+ votes cross-posted to about 10 groups, 2 moderated groups and 1 mailing list? How about a notice to each group, with the results only in news.groups? I know it's a pain to wade through this stuff in news.groups when you really want to see the flame wars, but why bother the other groups? -- Jim Wright jwright@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu
tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) (04/12/89)
In article <13561@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > As I have mentioned before, in the cause of reducing the cost to the >net *any* list which has some number of readers (200 maybe) should be >allowed to become a group by having the moderator post the names of the >readers as yes votes. Some mailing lists are private and any decision to drop private status and become a public newsgroup would probably not be unanimous, even if the moderator supported the idea. It would be disingenuous to stuff the ballot box with dissenters' names. If a mailing list conducted its own poll beforehand and reported the votes for both sides, that would be fairer; it would also be the status quo. Any mailing list whose subject matter poses significant risk of pointless flamage or idiotic news.drivel is much better off staying as a list even if there are more than 200 members. If the moderator gets tired of his duties he should not have the easy out of issuing a "newgroup" and collapsing onto the sofa, which would be a big temptation if bill's idea were adopted. -- Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP or tneff@dasys1.UUCP
brendan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Brendan Kehoe) (04/12/89)
In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net > for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and > proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for > each member of the list) may not be counted. This still rubs me the wrong way...that's like saying "well, since you can't get to the polls, you're not entitled to an absentee ballot and you'll be stuck with whoever gets elected." In practice, I can see how it is necessary..but I'll repeat my post of a few weeks ago, saying that if this is to be a requirement, then the vote-taker should be at a relatively "high" level site...and reliable mail delivery assumed, not hoped for. As for moderators representing their whole list, I agree that this is wrong..people can't be able to send in 50-100 votes en masse..what the moderator COULD do, if he or she feels strongly enough about the subject, is to include in their mailing lists a request that all readers "PLEASE vote suchnsuch on this! my_reasons_why_then_why_you_should_feel_this_way_too"; that way, if people get ticked off, it's not splattered all over the net, and at the same time, those who would be most interested in the subject but happen not to read news.* would get a chance to check it out for themselves (or take the moderator's word as the writings of God..hehe, ok so maybe some already DO). -- Brendan Kehoe brendan@cup.portal.com | GEnie: B.KEHOE | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye brendan@chinet.chi.il.us | CI$: 71750,2501 | to my mind! brendan@jolnet.orpk.il.us | Galaxy: Brendan | - Abby Normal
csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) (04/12/89)
In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: > > GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION (2nd draft) > >REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: >3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated > or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator will be) must be agreed > upon during the discussion period, which may last up to 30 days if needed. > >The Vote > >1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is > really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been > determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will > moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.groups and any > other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion > might have been posted to. Sorry, Greg, but there's a problem here. This seems to imply that we have to achieve agreement on all the details during the discussion period. It ain't gonna happen. If we have to have a consensus before the vote begins, it's going to be amazingly difficult to create new groups. The discussion period allows the individual calling for the vote to respond to input from the net in constructing the call for votes, the group charter, etc. It's the vote itself that determines whether a group (as named and chartered, moderated, etc.) is really desired. Perhaps this is nitpicking, but I don't think we want this wording coming back to haunt us later. -- Dave Mack
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr) (04/13/89)
In article <11302@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: | a list even if there are more than 200 members. If the moderator gets | tired of his duties he should not have the easy out of issuing a | "newgroup" and collapsing onto the sofa, which would be a big | temptation if bill's idea were adopted. Quick! Elighten me! How is a mailing list less work than a moderated group? I just thought I could save MONEY. Is there some software that reads groups and deletes the bullshit, flames and redundant postings? No, or this group wouldn't exist;-) Why are you trying to turn this into a laziness issue? Cold fusion hasn't brought down the cost of the electrons the phone services use... hell you'd think they were trying to make a profit. | -- | Tom Neff tneff@well.UUCP | or tneff@dasys1.UUCP I'm mildly offended by this, since I take a lot of time putting questions and replies together, deleting dups and occasionally removing some hi-voltage or uninformative postings. -- bill davidsen (wedu@crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) (04/13/89)
> 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote > .... Partial vote > results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new > group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. And a list of the people from whom votes have been successfully received, PLEASE! Email is just too unreliable with "all those mailers out there". -- Mark Brader "That's what progress is for. Progress SoftQuad Inc., Toronto is for creating new forms of aggravation." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Keith Jackson This article is in the public domain.
cratz@icldata.UUCP (Tony Cratz) (04/14/89)
In article <1989Apr12.222624.2867@sq.com>, msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > > 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote > > .... Partial vote > > results should NOT be included; only a statement of the specific new > > group proposal, that a vote is in progress on it, and how to cast a vote. > > And a list of the people from whom votes have been successfully received, > PLEASE! Email is just too unreliable with "all those mailers out there". I would also like to see the person who is collecting the votes send an Email message saying something along the lines of 'Have receive your vote and it will be counted'. This way we know that our Email was receive and don't need to wait for a list to be posted to make sure. -- "Looks like plant food to me" Tony Cratz work phone: (408) 982-3585 UUCP: uunet!altnet!datack!cratz Snail: ICLDatachecker, 800 Central Expressway MS 33-36, Santa Clara, Ca 95052
chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (04/15/89)
According to davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr): > As I have mentioned before, in the cause of reducing the cost to the >net *any* list which has some number of readers (200 maybe) should be >allowed to become a group by having the moderator post the names of the >readers as yes votes. And as I have mentioned before, such a policy would run counter to the purpose of the survey. The question is not, "Is this topic interesting?" The question is, "Should there be a newsgroup with this name?" I may subscribe to the info-turnips mailing list. Nevertheless, I may oppose the creation of soc.turnips. -- Chip Salzenberg <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> A T Engineering Me? Speak for my company? Surely you jest! "It's no good. They're tapping the lines."
david@dhw68k.cts.com (David H. Wolfskill) (04/16/89)
In article <3156@alembic.UUCP> csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes: [Quote from Greg's recent Guidelines, 2nd Ed. elided -- dhw] >Sorry, Greg, but there's a problem here. This seems to imply that >we have to achieve agreement on all the details during the discussion >period. It ain't gonna happen. If we have to have a consensus before >the vote begins, it's going to be amazingly difficult to create new >groups. You are proposing, as an alternative, starting the vote *before* the perticipants in the vote have come to an agreement as to what it is that they're attempting to decide? That seems to me to be an invitation to even more chaos than is usual on the net (outside, I presume, of alt.*). >The discussion period allows the individual calling for the vote to >respond to input from the net in constructing the call for votes, the >group charter, etc. Quite so; and the individual in question ought to have done this *during the discussion period* -- which is prior to the "call for votes." >It's the vote itself that determines whether a group (as named and >chartered, moderated, etc.) is really desired. Agreed. >Perhaps this is nitpicking, but I don't think we want this wording coming >back to haunt us later. On the contrary, I think we wouldn't want the *lack* of such wording coming back to haunt us later. The objective, as I understand it, it to come up with a reasonable formalization of the currently-accepted guidelines for newsgroup creation. One of the reasons for doing this is to have a deterministic method for deciding whether or not a given newsgroup proposal has, in fact, "made it." Counting "votes" that were submitted before the nature of the newsgroup proposal has stabilized is asking for disputes as to the validity of the process; that merely wastes net.bandwidth, time, and patience. (Recall, if you will, the controversy regarding the process of creating (what eventually became) the newsgroup comp.society.women.) At some risk of earning the label of "curmudgeon," I submit that if enough folks can't agree as to the desired characteristics of the (proposed) newsgroup, perhaps the newsgroup ought not be created. david -- David H. Wolfskill uucp: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!david InterNet: david@dhw68k.cts.com
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (04/18/89)
In article <1989Apr14.130718.1398@ateng.ateng.com>, chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > I may subscribe to the info-turnips mailing list. Nevertheless, I may > oppose the creation of soc.turnips. Quite so! The newsgroup should obviously be named comp.turnips. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "Contemptuous lights flashed across the computer's -- karl@ficc.uu.net console." -- Hitchhiker's Guide
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/18/89)
In article <3889@ficc.uu.net>, karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) writes: > In article <1989Apr14.130718.1398@ateng.ateng.com>, chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > > I may subscribe to the info-turnips mailing list. Nevertheless, I may > > oppose the creation of soc.turnips. > > Quite so! The newsgroup should obviously be named comp.turnips. Why don't you compromise on comp.society.turnips. That should, uh, "squash" this argument before you pepper us with more postings. Even 24-carrot ones. From the Beet Generation, Jeff Daiell -- Salve lucrum!
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/20/89)
In article <1989Apr14.130718.1398@ateng.ateng.com>, chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
D> According to davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (Wm. E. Davidsen Jr):
o> > As I have mentioned before, in the cause of reducing the cost to the
w> >net *any* list which has some number of readers (200 maybe) should be
n> >allowed to become a group by having the moderator post the names of the
T> >readers as yes votes.
h>
e> And as I have mentioned before, such a policy would run counter to the
T> purpose of the survey. The question is not, "Is this topic interesting?"
u> The question is, "Should there be a newsgroup with this name?"
b>
e> I may subscribe to the info-turnips mailing list. Nevertheless, I may
s> oppose the creation of soc.turnips.
And considering what happened to info-futures when it became comp.futures,
perhaps such opposition ought to be the default. Moderators should be
required to post their readers' names as "no" votes... :-)
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu
four miles long, but only in the fourth dimension