chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (10/10/90)
Followers of the comp.unix.wizards/internals/esoterica debate in news.groups will no doubt be entertained to find that John F. Haugh II, who issued a newgroup on c.u.wizards without any of the normal procedures, is now trying to run a "vote" on the subject -- with the call for votes posted only to c.u.wizards. According to jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): >Chip Salzenberg says I should run a vote if I want >to see comp.unix.wizards return. Each person is responsible for his own actions. John would like to blame me for his actions. Such attempted abdication of responsibility is futile. It is the Usenet community as a whole that expects the guidelines to be followed. The guidelines can be ignored, of course, but doing so entails the risk of having news admins collectively say: "No way, dude." John has assumed that risk. >In a month or so, I'll tally the votes and send the >results off to the net.gods for their action. It has been a long time since there were any net.gods to answer that mail. The backbone lost its spine long ago. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (10/10/90)
In article <27120776.717A@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >Followers of the comp.unix.wizards/internals/esoterica debate >in news.groups will no doubt be entertained to find that John >F. Haugh II, who issued a newgroup on c.u.wizards without any >of the normal procedures, is now trying to run a "vote" on the >subject -- with the call for votes posted only to c.u.wizards. First, the guidelines have been followed. There has been discussion in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks. Second, others have suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated. Third, the vote was announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups. That is the gist of the guidelines. That there be discussion, some concensus on action to be taken, and a call for votes. According to those guidelines, this is a valid vote. This is not the first time some mention of this vote has been made in news.groups. Complaints that the "CFV" was not made in news.groups are a red herring - surely by now everyone in news.groups knows I am holding a vote for comp.unix.wizards. If they didn't know before your posting, they sure as hell do now. >It has been a long time since there were any net.gods to >answer that mail. The backbone lost its spine long ago. I'll have to explain this to Eliot so he'll know that when I send him the tallied votes that he shouldn't answer his mail. There are still quite a few people who play a non-trivial role in the running of USENET. As for what is currently going on, there have been a number of suggestions made that comp.unix.wizards would be a useful group if it were moderated. Since that is not the issue that I started this vote with, I'm not going to address it other than to say that if a moderator with recognizable credentials wishes to volunteer their time, then I'll abandon my current vote and let them procede with a vote to re-create comp.unix.wizards as a moderated group. Otherwise, my current vote to re-create the unmoderated comp.unix.wizards will continue until 11/3. My personal opinion is that all of USENET should be moderated. This is not a new or unique opinion. The only problem with this is finding enough qualified moderators. Given the choice between moderated groups and unmoderated groups, I always choose the moderated flavor. So, I happen to think that a moderated comp.unix.wizards would stand a very good chance of being created, and given the generally high quality and signal-to-noise ratio of moderated groups that it would definitely be a group to read. And yes, I would vote for a moderated comp.unix.wizards over an unmoderated comp.unix.wizards every time. -- 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 Thompson
epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (10/10/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) thinks: | In article <27120776.717A@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: | >Followers of the comp.unix.wizards/internals/esoterica debate | >in news.groups will no doubt be entertained to find that John | >F. Haugh II, who issued a newgroup on c.u.wizards without any | >of the normal procedures, is now trying to run a "vote" on the | >subject -- with the call for votes posted only to c.u.wizards. | | First, the guidelines have been followed. There has been discussion | in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks. Second, others have | suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated. Third, the vote was | announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups. That is the | gist of the guidelines. That there be discussion, some concensus on | action to be taken, and a call for votes. According to those | guidelines, this is a valid vote. Huh?!? What kind of guidelines are these? If mean that *a* set of guidelines has been followed, well, yeah, that's true. But if you mean that *the* Guidelines have been followed, which I'm sure you do since you are proposing a new group and since there are specific guidelines for that action, then you're wrong. I hate to cite the Guidelines, but this posting cries for it ... | This is not the first time some mention of this vote has been made | in news.groups. Complaints that the "CFV" was not made in news.groups | are a red herring - surely by now everyone in news.groups knows I am | holding a vote for comp.unix.wizards. If they didn't know before your | posting, they sure as hell do now. "Surely"? "Everyone"?! How do you know that? That's right -- you *can't*. That's why you post your Calls for {Discussion,Votes} to news.announce.newgroups -- so that those who want to be part of the pseudo-democracy here can. Those like yourself who claim they don't have the time to read n.a.n (but apparently *do* have the time to fight for their favorite newsgroup back from the hands of that evil Chip Salzenberg :-) forfeit their right to participate in the group suggestion process. | My personal opinion is that all of USENET should be moderated. This | is not a new or unique opinion. The only problem with this is finding | enough qualified moderators. Ack! If the whole thing were moderated, your supposed "call for votes" might never appear ... did you ever think about that? And who would qualify the moderators? Not you, I hope. I prefer limited moderation rather than global. | So, I happen to think that a moderated comp.unix.wizards would stand | a very good chance of being created, and given the generally high | quality and signal-to-noise ratio of moderated groups that it would | definitely be a group to read. And yes, I would vote for a moderated | comp.unix.wizards over an unmoderated comp.unix.wizards every time. If there were no other changes to the comp.unix.* structure before Chip's reorganization proposal, I would agree with you. However, there are plenty of other groups that handle the information contained comp.unix.wizards. And how much more effort is it to read c.u.shell, c.u.internals, c.u.admin, c.u.programmer, and c.u.misc? Two, maybe three keystrokes per group? A total of ten seconds out of your day? Like I said, I hate to do it, but your posting leaves me no other choice: | GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION | | REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION: | | [[ ... ]] | | The Discussion | | 1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted | to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists | at all related to the proposed topic if desired. By posting the discussion to comp.unix.wizards only, you violated the first rule. That makes you 0 and 1 so far. | 2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated | or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be | determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement | on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days | of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead | of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among | themselves. Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made, | going back to step 1) above. Is there general agreement on these points amongst the proponents? So far I've seen at least three different serious proposals for the group. I'll count this as another against you, making you 0 and 2. | The Vote | | 1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is | really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been | determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will | moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and | any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion | might have been posted to. There should be minimal delay between the | end of the discussion period and the issuing of a call for votes. | The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast | a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a | vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. Is the new group really desired? Did you post the CFV to n.a.n as well as other relevant groups? Did it include clear instructions for vote casting? Do you want it moderated or don't you? That sounds like 4 against you so far, but you did keep the time between the discussion period and the CFV minimal (which, BTW, gives new meaning to the world "minimal", considering that your discussion period never formally started or ended). So I'll count you at 1 and 6 so far. | 2) The voting period should last for at least 21 days and no more than 31 | days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote are. The exact | date that the voting period will end should be stated in the call for | votes. No serious date was given by you for the end of the voting period. 1 and 7. | 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, | provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for | casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat | of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below). You can't go changing the proposal from un- to moderated in the middle of the vote (you've already called for votes, remember?)! It's gotta be the "SAME" proposal. 1 and 8. | 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net | for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and | proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for | each member of the list) may not be counted. You have requested this in your CFV, so I'll give credit where credit is due. 2 and 8. | 5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote shall | count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response to. In particular, | a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name shall NOT be counted as | a vote for or against a newsgroup with a different name or charter, | a different moderated/unmoderated status or (if moderated) a different | moderator or set of moderators. My complaint here is essentially the same as under item (3) above, so I won't count this again. Still 2 and 8. | 6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the | group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar | as proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to | be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote | for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not | counted as votes. This you've done, I suppose. Make it 3 and 8. So far, it seems that you've followed about 27% of the guidelines so far ... that's not what I would call deviation from the guidelines under "extreme conditions" (see the full guidelines for the quote). Face it -- the net voted to eliminate comp.unix.wizards. Simple as that. Too bad for you if you don't like it. Eric PS: Speaking from, but in no way for, Encore. -- Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208 Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (10/11/90)
In article <18581@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: | First, the guidelines have been followed. There has been discussion | in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks. Second, others have | suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated. Third, the vote was | announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups. That is the | gist of the guidelines. That there be discussion, some concensus on | action to be taken, and a call for votes. According to those | guidelines, this is a valid vote. From the "call for votes": < Hi. Chip Salzenberg says I should run a vote if I want < to see comp.unix.wizards return. I happen to think the < answer is obvious. < < So, this is the vote. If you would like to see the < return of comp.unix.wizards, with no other changes to < any of the new groups, send your YES vote to my address. < In a month or so, I'll tally the votes and send the < results off to the net.gods for their action. I'm not < suggesting any of the other groups get removed, just < that c.u.wizards get reinstated. < < Don't bother telling me about the guidelines, that's < what got c.u.wizards screwed up in the first place. Note that there *isn't even an address* for NO votes. Let's not let democracy get in the way of getting what we want, right? I would have gone along with a vote, but this is ridiculous. The alias stays on my machines, regardless. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) VMS is a text-only adventure game. If you win you can use unix.
mitchell@chance.uucp (George Mitchell) (10/11/90)
In article <18581@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
wrote:
`First, the guidelines have been followed. There has been discussion
`in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks. Second, others have
`suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated. Third, the vote was
`announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups. That is the
`gist of the guidelines. That there be discussion, some concensus on
`action to be taken, and a call for votes. According to those
`guidelines, this is a valid vote.
It is news to me!
As of now, I vote against comp.unix.wizards.
I have seen no proposal, discussion, or call for votes.
Any vote before the c.u.esoterica vote is premature.
I will abstain from that vote.
--
George Mitchell, MITRE, MS Z676, 7525 Colshire Dr, McLean, VA 22102
email: gmitchel@mitre.org [alt: mitchell@community-chest.mitre.org]
vmail: 703/883-6029 FAX: 703/883-5519