stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) (02/23/90)
This is a 2nd Call for Discussion of a possible change in the Guidelines for
creating newsgroups (How to Create a New Newsgroup). Most of the questions that
I have seen posted and the one email message I received, seem to revolve around
the question of how to vote against the creation of a group. I am therefore
adding new language in braces to the original proposal, like this -> {new
wording}. I am also indicating the wording replaced, like this -> {}.
I will then answer any questions / comments that I saw posted that weren't
already answered by others.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest Group Surveys, called votes under the Guidelines, allow people to more
effectively use Net resources. They have two functions. The first is to
determine if enough people are interested in a topic. The second is to find a
good name for a newsgroup. Large mailing lists load host machines and the Net,
they also create bounced mail which absorb the time of skilled personnel.
The assumptions:
A newsgroup with 100 persons is less costly to maintain than a mailing list.
This determines support needed to create a newsgroup.
{Voters do not express a preference among names they oppose. (This is what
almost everyone does, as I observed in the comp.groupware vote.)}
==== Single Transferable Vote (STV) instructions in less than 25 lines ====
Following the discussion period, all names that have been posted (seconded names
appearing first) will be included in an Interest Group Survey
announcement. Each name will be represented by a single character, with "a"
representing "abstain" {and "n" representing "no group"}.
Respondents follow these rules:
1. While unmoved characters {representing acceptable names} remain:
Select your preferred name and move its character to the subject line
(place each one after [to the right of] the ones already moved).
2. {If you do not support some selected options, then} place an "a" after the
character representing the last name you {support} (If you do not support
creation of the newsgroup with any of the names, put the "a" before the
options). {If you oppose creation of the newsgroup with any (other) name(s),
then place a "n" after the moved characters (if any).}
Votes are scored by repeatedly removing the options that have the least support
from the front of responses, until the majority option is removed. Then subtract
the "a"s removed from the total responses to find the support for creation of
the newsgroup. {Add the "n"s removed to any "n"s remaining at the front of
responses to find the opposition to creation of the newsgroup} (for a worked
example {[that does not include the "no group" option]}, see "Single
transferrable vote counting"). If {support} is 100 or more {and if their is more
support than opposition}, the group shall be created.
Number of responses received, number supporting creation, number supporting the
most preferred name, {number opposing creation,} and the how each person voted,
shall be posted.
============ end STV in less than 25 lines ==========================
The stopping rule used above is intended to work even if "abstain" {or "no
group"} is the majority option.
A vote on a change to the Guidelines would most likely include:
1. "STV in less than 25 lines", as posted earlier (without a "no group" option).
2. "STV in less than 25 lines", as above.
3. Current Guidelines. (Compared to option 2, the current Guidelines do not
support majority rule, a "no group" vote is counted twice [this is true in the
Yes - No > 100 requirement, and in the 2/3 Yes votes requirement]. Compared to
option 1, current rules permit a new group proposal to be defeated no matter how
many people vote in favor of its creation. The earlier rational for these very
strict requirements, that they would force a group champion to put forward only
an acceptable name, is eliminated by STV voting, since it allows the
respondents, not the group champion, to select the name for the new group.)
-----------
Suggestions for changes to "'STV in less than 25 lines', as above", and other
options for the vote, must be mailed to me by Feb. 28, 1990 to be included in
the Call for Votes.
These changes assume some modification to the Guidelines sections about
discussion and so on.
||||||||||||||||||||| Unanswered questions / comments |||||||||||||
woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
in Message-ID: <6279@ncar.ucar.edu> writes:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
any
voting procedure that requires programs that are not a standard part of
an operating system in use on a significant number of machines on the net
in order to count votes cannot be considered to be easily verifiable.
[....]The STV procedure does not meet this requirement.
[....]
I think anything that
cuts down on the flame wars over names is a good thing. But I don't think
we want to replace that with flame wars on the voting results instead
end""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
During the comp.groupware vote I posted "Single transferrable vote counting"
which shows how to score STV votes with the "Find/Replace" function of a text
processor (assuming the number of replacements is displayed). I will post it
again when the call for votes is posted. A shell script for STV counting was
also recently posted. These options make verification available to nearly
everyone. I feel it is good practice to have duplicate vote counters, and people
who volunteer to do this will likely have software to count votes automatically,
assuming voters follow instructions to place responses on the subject line.
The STV vote for comp.groupware did not generate a single complaint about the
name chosen for the new group, and not a single complaint about votes not being
counted correctly. Other STV votes have not generated any flames about their
results, thought there have been complaints that STV is not the accepted voting
method. Hopefully, this change to the Guidelines will eliminate that as a source
of complaint.
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) in Message-ID: <4917@itivax.iti.org> writes:
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
No more of this crap on
{rec,talk,sci,foobar}.{aquaria,objectivism} -- a huge percentage of the
fight isn't whether or not to have the group, but where to create it.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This summarizes the many recent events in which flame wars have swamped
news.groups and other news.* groups. The current Guidelines simple do not deal
effectively with what name a new group should have, only if it should be
created. Flames can be reduced if the group champion is no longer the sole
determiner of the name for the proposed newsgroup.
--
David S. Stodolsky, PhD Internet: david@harald.ruc.dk
Department of Psychology : stodol@diku.dk
Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice: + 45 31 58 48 86
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax: + 45 31 54 32 11brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/23/90)
The primary goals in selecting names in a namespace are consistency and utility. Popularity of a name probably isn't even on the list of goals, but if it is, then it's way down. Voting for names, or surveying opinion on names doesn't make any sense. It ignores the primary goals and makes a lesser one the only criterion. There is a mistaken effort here. The current situation also does not help with the goals of consistency and utility because it does not define any method for deciding a name. This is not good, some people have pointed out, and they're right. But it is better than "officially adopting" something we know isn't a great answer. In this case, any answer is *not* better than no answer, because once you put something in these silly guidelines, it stays, and all sorts of control freaks and net.police run around busily pointing ot any technical violation they can find. The correlation between a good name and the most popular name is marginal, if it exists at all. Why carve it in stone as a tool for naming groups? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473