allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (03/28/89)
In article <3566@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >If someone can summon up 100 people to vote against a group, there is enough >anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. ANY group that has any great amount >of controversy is probably going to ba a bad net.partner anyway. So, if I put out a vote to rmgroup a group, and got 100 for and 100 against, what should be done? What about 100 for removal and 150 for the retention? Should the minority rule in this case? -- Allen Gwinn sulaco!allen DISCLAIMER: Nobody else would WANT my opinions.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/29/89)
I posted this, regarding newsgroup creation: In article <3566@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >If someone can summon up 100 people to vote against a group, there is enough >anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. ANY group that has any great amount >of controversy is probably going to ba a bad net.partner anyway. Apparently Allen interpreted it in terms of newsgroup deletion: In article <589@sulaco.Sigma.COM>, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: > So, if I put out a vote to rmgroup a group, and got 100 for and 100 > against, what should be done? What about 100 for removal and 150 for > the retention? Should the minority rule in this case? Apologies for the confusion. I guess I need to word this a little better: If someone can summon up 100 people to oppose a vote, there is enough anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. Any vote that has a great amount of opposition is not in the interests of the net, and the status-quo should be retained. Of course, I've come around to the point of view that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the rules as they currently stand, and I don't think that there is any point in trying to fine-tune them right now. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.