alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (12/02/89)
PROPOSAL I would like to start a discussion on the creation of rec.aquaria. This would have the following charter: - rec.aquaria: A group to discuss the hobby of keeping, raising, and breeding fish, invertebrates, and plants in fresh, brackish, and salt water tanks. This discussion period will end on Monday 18 December. If the discussion is positive, it will be followed by a Call for Votes on that date. This Call for Votes will only be made if Peter de Silva voluntarily withdraws his current vote - I will not run this as an interference vote. RATIONALE I don't think that anyone doubts the justification for an aquaria group. Alt.aquaria has demonstrated the viability, interest, and volume needed for a mainstream group. The recent sci.aquaria vote gathered almost 1000 votes, and managed to pass despite widespread opposition to the name and charter. I think that there are two clear reasons why this is not a violation of the 'six month rule' prohibiting consecutive votes. First, this is a different group and charter than sci.aquaria. This is clearly meant to be a forum for hobbyist exchanges. Scientific input would be expected and welcome, but the focus is on the hobbyist. Second, it is becoming clear that sci.aquaria is stillborn due to admin opposition. In fact, many of these have stated that they would actually begin to support sci.aquaria if there was a rec group to remove the hobbyist traffic. I think that it is clear that the rec.aquariUM vote failed for two reasons: - It was perceived (probably correctly) as an interference vote being run by someone who was an outsider to the group for the sole purpose of disturbing the sci.aquaria vote. - It used the suffix .aquarium, which is not the clearly preferred suffix among the current users. As much as I would like to use a multiple choice voting scheme, discussion of them is still active and none has been accepted as the clear choice, much less as part of the 'official' Usenet voting guidelines. The choice that I am using, rec.aquaria, is the leading rec. choice from the name poll that was run, and it also demonstrated the strongest support in the sci.aquaria debate. Finally, I should discuss why I am trying to run this vote in place of Peter's. Let me be quite honest. I was a supporter of sci.aquaria. I am also an active poster from alt.aquaria. Peter was one of the most vocal opponents of sci.aquaria and isn't a participant. Furthermore, Peter's current vote clearly violates Usenet guidelines (no call for discussion, non-standard voting system). Let me make something clear. I am NOT trying to roast Peter here. I suspect that he is doing what he is doing to try to 'fix' the current sci.aquaria problem. However, between being an 'outsider' and violating Usenet conventions this proposal has already stirred the flames back into life. I would like to do this in as quiet and calm a manner as possible, and douse down the flames instead of encouraging them. I think that Peter is trying to do the same thing that I am, I just think that this way is more likely to lead to a concensus that will let the whole thing die peacefully. I hope that I can get Peter to join me and form a 'coalition party' to get this think quickly and peacefully resolved. If not, I will not call for a contrary vote. I will not push for any kind of ballot stuffing or even heavily lobby for this proposal, and I encourage others to be similarily restrained. FINAL NOTES As a relative novice in the process of newgroup creation, I would appreciate someone e-mailing me a copy of the guidelines covering newgroup creation. I believe that I have fulfilled the disclosure and the discussion requirements of the guidelines. -- --------| Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls Alien | would scarcely get your feet wet. - Deteriorata --------| decvax!frog!cpoint!alien bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien