From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:24:12 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov13.180935.877@metrosoft.com>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: gvh@metrosoft.com's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.180935.877@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

   I have a question. Who does someone have to "Show a substantial failure to  
   follow the guidelines, which iscause for a revote". I'm NOT saying that  
   this applies in this case, but who do you have to convince? If it's the  
   original vote-taker, it would obviously be a VERY difficult thing to do.  
   Who has the final authority here?

Ultimately, each site is under the authority of its admins.  They
may be under some political/management authority, but the admins
are generally responsible for the computer systems, including news.

So, attempt to convince the newsadmins.  Generally that's done by
posting in news.groups or news.admin[.*].  Usually a general
consensus results, although not a unanimous decision.

Dave H has presented his case for a revote, and I see the general
consensus disagreeing with him.  The argument for a revote is
distinct here from a dissatisfaction with the current Guidelines
and a proposal to amend them, although this dissatisfaction was
brought to light by Dave's complaint.

In practice, most newsadmins accept Dave Lawrence's authority, not
blindly, but because they generally perceive that he makes fair
decisions.  This results in an anarchy becoming less chaotic, which is
generally better for the net.  Should Dave L begin to make decisions
not generally perceived to be fair, he would be deposed from his
largely thankless job, and some other scheme for authority on the net
would arise.

Dave L then bases his decisions on the Guidelines and votes conducted
according to the Guidelines.  Votes have become an acceptable way,
on USENET as well as in democracies, for people to express their
opinion in a quantifiable way.  Votes are a metric for assessing
"the will of the people".

The short answer, now, is to conduct an argument; then Dave L makes a
decision based on his perception of the consensus (again, general not
unanimous) resulting from the discussion.  Then the admins that accept
Dave L's decision (historically, the vast majority) implement it.

Dave L is the focus for the resolution of disagreements, but he
reflects the consensus of the admins.

As should be obvious, but I'll spell it out: This is my observation of
the chain of authority on USENET.  My observations are subject to
personal presumptions.  I think the current system works well,
compared to other systems.  Feel free to point out where you perceive
me to be wrong.  Feel free to propose alterations to the Guidelines;
there's precedent for that.  Feel free to argue for a scheme you feel
to be better, given the nature of the net.  The admins, as always,
have the final say on their own systems.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
    employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
         NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Newsgroups: news.groups