jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/18/90)
Hi. Two weeks ago a vote was announced in comp.unix.internals
on the question of re-creating comp.unix.wizards. You will
recall that comp.unix.wizards was removed, and replaced with
a wealth of other newsgroups.
There have been several questions and complaints since the
vote was originally called, and I'd like to take this time
at middle point of the vote to remind everyone the vote is
still going on, and to answer some of the questions.
1). What is this vote for? Didn't we just have a vote?
Yes, we just had a vote, and many people were dissatisfied
with the outcome. Many of those people think the old
.wizards group should be restored, so this vote will
give those people a chance to have their voices heard.
2). What is going to happen to these new groups?
Nothing. The new groups have their purpose, and they will
stay just the way they are. This vote only affects the
existence of comp.unix.wizards, and does not remove any
other groups.
3). Why didn't this get posted in news.groups? Isn't that a
requirement?
The guidelines only suggest that news.groups be included,
as well as other "relevant" newsgroups. Since news.groups
is not related to the subject of UNIX programming, and
since it is typically such a high-noise newsgroup, I felt
news.groups was an inappropriate newsgroup. This is
permitted by the guidelines and has allowed this decision
to be made by the users of comp.unix, rather than a group
of uninvolved bystanders. Many people disagree, and they
have posted articles in news.groups on the subject of this
vote. So the issue is being covered in news.groups even
without my posting a formal "Call For Votes" there.
4). Where do I send "NO" votes?
You send your "NO" votes to the same place as your "YES"
votes, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org. Posted votes don't count.
You may put anything you wish in the vote, so long as the
meaning is clear. Profane language will not be tolerated,
however, so please keep your votes clean.
5). Wouldn't it be better if it was a moderated group?
Perhaps, but I'm not holding a vote on that question.
Many people have expressed the opinion that .wizards should
be moderated, and I have come to agree with them. I
offered to stop this vote should a moderator with known
credentials step forward, and so far none has. That offer
still stands.
6). When does the vote end?
November 3rd, one month after the start of the vote.
7). What are we going to do about inappropriate and inaccurate
postings?
Troublesome postings have been with us for years, and
creating 1,000 new groups will not reduce the number of
such postings. We can only hope that the users of
comp.unix.wizards will be professional enough to ignore
postings which they find "inappropriate" and to not answer
postings which they aren't qualified to answer.
--
John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!"
-- Ken Thompsonemcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) (10/19/90)
In article <18603@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > 3). Why didn't this get posted in news.groups? Isn't that a > requirement? > The guidelines only suggest that news.groups be included, > as well as other "relevant" newsgroups. Since news.groups > is not related to the subject of UNIX programming, and > since it is typically such a high-noise newsgroup, I felt > news.groups was an inappropriate newsgroup. You are a liar. The guidelines make no mention of posting a call for votes to news.groups. The only group mentioned specifically is the moderated group news.announce.newgroups. It is a low noise, low volume group. The basic information for all USENET users, regularly posted to news.announce.newusers, includes "Introduction to news.announce". That article tells every USENET reader that news.announce.newgroups exists solely to announce creation or consideration of new newsgroups, and that all calls for votes and discussions, all vote results, and all creation notices should be posted there. Sysops do not have time to read every special interest group. The news.announce groups are there for a reason. Public announcement of a vote where sysops can see it is a basic responsibility which you have abrogated. Your attempt to spread misinformation in order to justify your error is contemptible. I refuse to dignify your campaign with a vote. Ed
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (10/19/90)
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, on the whole Mr. Haugh's vote does NOT follow the guidelines for newsgroup creation. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) (10/21/90)
>Just so that there is no misunderstanding, on the whole Mr. Haugh's >vote does NOT follow the guidelines for newsgroup creation. Just so there is an understanding, I asked Eliot in mail a while ago if I should draft a Call For Votes, to which the response was to await this vote. I have mentioned this twice in news.groups and it has not been contradicted. Thus, the moderator seems to abide the vote itself while being highly critical of its promulgation. I agree on the second point, and will go along with the first assuming that the vote can have a meaningful result. "on the whole" above could mean that absent a proper Call we can have a vote but not exactly know what the results should mean, since there is no proposed charter. However, in this case there was a perfectly good charter already which can fill the gap handily. The Guidelines _have_ been followed to a tee, but the "T" came at the start of the voting rather than near the end when it is more customary to bend a rule or two. The Guidelines' spirit was being ignored rather more baldly when just before this Vote was called for "my version of the Guidelines is better than your version" and "I called for this discussion and I am not going to let anyone call for its vote" started being bandied about. So, as they say here in Chicago, Vote Early, Vote Often! -- My .signature is on vacation ------------- like me!