mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/26/88)
Dave Caswell writes: >I asked this question a while ago and no one answered. Why do we allow >NO votes? Who cares how many people are uninterested in a topic and will >never read about it? I'm going to vote YES just to counteract the people >who are voting NO. Because voting no is the only way to effectively express disapproval of any aspect of a group proposal. Considerations like "does it have an appropriate name?" or "where should it be in the hierarchy?" are relevant. Let me suggest a modification to the current voting rules. Have two phases; in the first phase, the "interest" phase, only "Yes" votes are collected as to whether a group *under some name* will be created for the subject matter at hand. In the second phase, the name of the group is voted on; here I think it would appropriate to have a majority rule, so that, if no proposed name gets a majority, the group is not created. I think perhaps that votes for "none of the above" might be permitted (implying an effective vote against creation under any name), but it might be better to require voting FOR some name in this phase, implying that one must suggest a new name if one is to vote against all the previously suggested names. Comments? C. Wingate
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (05/27/88)
From article <11672@mimsy.UUCP>, by mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate): > Dave Caswell writes: >>I asked this question a while ago and no one answered. Why do we allow >>NO votes? Who cares how many people are uninterested in a topic and will > Because voting no is the only way to effectively express disapproval of any > aspect of a group proposal. Considerations like "does it have an > appropriate name?" or "where should it be in the hierarchy?" are relevant. The point to having NO votes is mostly as stated above, but since NO votes tend to be rather rare (cf: comp.protocol.tcp.eniac), it seems fine to allow them. If NO votes are enough to counteract most of the YESs, then it would be fair to assume that there is SOMETHING wrong with the newsgroup proposal (if only lack of interest). -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
day@grand.UUCP (Dave Yost) (05/28/88)
In article <3127@edm.UUCP> rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: >If NO votes are enough to counteract most of the YESs, then it would be >fair to assume that there is SOMETHING wrong with the newsgroup proposal >(if only lack of interest). assume SOMETHING? No votes should be thrown out unless they cite a violation of guidelines. Random people who have something against the subject matter itself should not be allowed to kill a new group proposal just by saying no. --dave
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) (06/01/88)
>The point to having NO votes is mostly as stated above, but since NO votes >tend to be rather rare (cf: comp.protocol.tcp.eniac), it seems fine to >allow them. If NO votes are enough to counteract most of the YESs, then >it would be fair to assume that there is SOMETHING wrong with the newsgroup >proposal (if only lack of interest). There is such a thing as organized bigotry. The only thing wrong with a newsgroup proposal may be that it runs foul of a grouping with ideological reasons for opposing its creation. This would presumably happen to any proposal for rec.guns.abolition.thereof, given the gun lobby's track record, and it's happening to comp.women. There are far more male supremacists on the net than there are feminists, and so the present creation rule works in their favour. -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878