brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (03/24/89)
Shortly, the text of the famous new survey on moderator policy and RHF will be posted. While I guess it's obvious that I would prefer people to vote No on this survey, I would like to make another point that I feel is important, without arguing the Yes/No case. I know this debate is boring the hell out of a lot of you, but please bear with me here, even if you have already made up your mind. I feel this vote asks more than one question. I made requests, but the vote taker has declined to count anything but the number of Yes votes or No votes. Spoiled ballots will not be counted by the vote taker and modified ballots will not be counted as anything but Yes or No votes. In spite of this, if you support me in the matter described below, I ask you to add the keyword "REJECT" to your ballot to indicate that you feel the vote asks an inappropriate question. I (or somebody else) will count these after the vote. (ie. say "YES REJECT" or "NO REJECT") The most obvious question that is begged by this vote is, "Is there such a thing as official usenet policy?" And of course, if there is, "Is it set through a usenet style survey?" If you think not, add REJECT to your vote, whether YES or NO. (You might still dislike my Genie plans, but you may also feel that a vote is not the way to settle the matter.) Can a vote call for the removal of a user or a site? If votes that try to set usenet policy are to exist, how far can they go? It is my feeling that usenet policy is, and always will be, strictly the sum of the actions of sysadmins. Another question is concerns what is to be done if the 'vote' passes, and we then have two surveys on very similar questions (both admittedly held by biased sources) that contradict one another? What does this mean and how is it to be dealt with? Do you feel that voters in one group, such as news.groups or rec.humor, should be able to made demands on the readers and moderators of another group? Readers of news.groups are not special, even news.admin is fully open. If you can't resolve this, add REJECT to your vote. To what extent can readers of one group decide what goes on in another? Do you think it is appropriate to hold a vote calling for the severing of the Genie link just 2 weeks after an overwhelming and verified approval by the people who read the affected group? If you feel a further vote simply wastes time and sets a bad precedent, add REJECT to your vote. The vote taker is sticking strictly to the newsgroup creation guidelines for the first ever attempt to hold a vote on "official usenet policy." Does that make sense? (You may not consider this grounds for adding REJECT.) What does make sense? On the other hand, the vote taker, after dismissing the RHF internal survey as biased, insists on conducting the vote himself because this is how the newsgroup creation guidelines go. If you disapprove of this, I ask you to add REJECT to your vote. You have probably already decided whether to vote YES or NO on this issue long ago, and we should avoid beating it to death any further. It is my hope that some of you will send a message, to be decoded later, that this vote does not properly address the question. If so, add this keyword to your vote so that others may examine the stream and find out what people thought on this matter. I am not sure how meaningful this will be, as I was not permitted to add this call to the actual posting of the question, but I would still like to see what transpires. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
roc@sequent.UUCP (Ron Christian) (03/28/89)
Split the opposition.