From: hades@coos.dartmouth.edu (Hades)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native
Subject: Re: CALL FOR STRAW VOTE: NATIVE NEWSGROUP
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:33:13 GMT
Reply-To: hades@Dartmouth.Edu
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Disclaimer: Personally, I really don't care who you think I speak for.
Moderator: Rec.Arts.Comics.Info


    Well, I was trying to stay out of this, but since so much of what
happened the last time we tried to get this group created is happening
again, I guess I'm back in the discussion. Just a little history, for
those that might or might not care: My name is Brian Hughes, I was the
person who ran the last RFD/CFV for soc.culture.native.american as well
as the person who ran the naming straw poll. That group failed by 2
votes. But enough about the past....

gst@spdcc.com (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:

>OK.  Sounds good.  In order to do the kind of evaluation I'd most like to do,
>I'd like to strongly encourage people to indicate first, second, and third
>choices.

    That makes it a little tough for Mike to tally the votes. How about
people assign weights to their choices: 3 for first choice, 2 for second
choice, and 1 for third choice. That way we could have total weight
given to a name, as well as total votes given to a name.

>Also, I suggest that we consider whatever results are obtained from this
>poll to be preliminary, since they will indicate only the opinions of
>the current readers of news.groups, and maybe a few from alt.native, to
>which many of these articles have been cross-posted.

    Then why are we having the straw poll in the first place? If all
that is going to come out of it is more name discussion, then we won't
have really accomplished anything. As for the cross-posting issue you
raise here, I'll get to that in a bit...

>I would like to recommend that, whatever the results of Mike's straw
>poll, the issue of the name of the newsgroup which appears in the CFV
>be deferred until early in January, since it seems fair to wait until
>people are back from their holidays, so as to give them a voice in the
>decision.  Meanwhile, maybe we can reach some rough consensus among some
>of those taking part in the present discussion.

    That sounds cool, but we will have to be a bit lax with the
Guidelines, since the RFD is only supposed to last a max. of 30 days
from the time it appears in news.announce.newgroups. If Dave Lawrence
doesn't have a problem with it, then we will be ok.

>I know that some people are of the opinion that what the newsgroup is
>called is really not that important, since someone can reasonably
>object to whatever name is chosen, and one or two people have written
>to me to express that opinion.  I feel there are some larger issues
>involved here, and it is worthwhile to think them through, *but* that
>we consult with a community of people who have a large stake in this
>question, namely those who have been discussing these subjects for the
>past three years by means of a very successful set of mailing lists,
>collectively known as "NativeNet."  

    The general consensus on UseNet is that the readers of UseNet
determine what happens here, and not the participants of some other
group of people like a mailing list with a similar topic as the group in
question. If there are members of the mailing list with UseNet access,
then they are free to participate, otherwise they really have no voice
here.

>Since it is my intent that the mailing list be integrated with the new
>newsgroup(s), and because the NativeNet community has been thinking
>about these subjects for some time, as have I, I feel it is important
>that these people be involved in the discussion about what proposal
>should be made concerning the name, as well as the actual vote itself,
>once a solid proposition has been formulated.

    This is something that I have a big problem with. If there is going
to be a gateway between this group and a mailing list, then I think that
it is an issue that should be voted upon by the members of UseNet who
will be effected by the increase in traffic that this would bring about.
If this is something that people feel they can just do, because they
think it is a good thing, then you will certainly not have my vote for
the group, and you can believe that I will do everything that I can to
get other to vote it down as well.

>Otherwise, there is a serious danger that the vote will fail, since many
>of these people could vote against it, preferring that a better proposal
>is offered that is more representative of their wishes, and that at
>least seeks to involve them in the decision- making process.

    "Many of these people" do not have UseNet access at their sites, and
therefore all of their votes are invalid. If you do not read the Net
then you do not get to decide what happens to the groups that comprise
the Net. None of the people on NativeNet or NetChat, or members of any
other mailing list that do not also have UseNet access, can vote for or
against this or any other new group proposal. There is no need to have a
proposal that "is more representative of their wishes", because their
wishes don't count. And if there are attempts made to include them, I
will do all I can to have the results of the vote, whatever they may be,
invalidated.

>As I said recently, there are really two separate issues that have
>to be decided - one being whether the new newsgroup (assuming the
>proposal is for only a single new newsgroup) should be for the pur-
>pose of exchanging information and ideas pertaining only to Native
>Americans/American Indians (including or excluding the Native Peoples
>of Central and South America), or whether it should be for the issues
>of and communication by and about indigenous peoples around the world.

    There are indigenous people located in every populated geographical
area on this planet. There are also a whole bunch of soc.culture.*
groups that are already serving many of these areas. Therefore a global
soc.culture.native is totally redundant for these groups that already
exist. 

>(My own preference is for the latter, initially at least, to encourage
>dialogue about shared problems and perceptions, with new newsgroups
>being formed as the need emerges for a more finely-tuned hierarchy,
>organized along geographical lines.) 

    This kind of splitting, if it were to work in the way you are
talking about here, would basically duplicate the soc.culture.*
hierarchy, or at least >75% of it. This is the biggest problem with a
group like soc.culture.native and was one of the reasons that it failed
the last time. There are already groups that handle the discussion of
native cultures around the world, with the excpetion of a few places
that should be given their own groups, like the natives of the Americas.

>I suggest that we begin a new round of discussion early in January,
>deliberately including people in the wider Usenet community in that
>discussion.

    First of all, this cannot just be done. There are "rules" that are
supposed to be followed when a group has been proposed in an official
RFD. Perhaps if a new RFD was proposed for soc.culture.native and enough
people felt that it was different enough from the previous RFD then a
new round of discussion is ok, otherwise the discussion is going to end
in early Jan. After that, it either goes to a CFV or the discussion
moves elsewere, usually to e-mail or back to the group it originated
from before the RFD.
    Secondly, there is no "wider Usenet community" unless you want the
RFD crossposted to all of the soc.culture.* groups that could be
effected as well as alt.native. Aside from that, there are no other
people that are effected by the creation of this group, that currently
read UseNet. Those without access to UseNet are not part of the UseNet
community, and are not included in official RFD/CFV discussions.

>After that discussion has taken place, we might find ourselves in the
>position of needing to take another straw poll.  I feel it is important
>that I make this propsal now, so that it doesn't appear that I am making
>it because I didn't like the way the results of the straw poll turned
>out, and therefore I want to get others in- volved so as to obtain the
>result I want.  The result I *do* want is that the process be open and
>fair, so that whatever decisions are made are arrived at with the
>consent, cooperation, and participation of everyone who feels a stake in
>the matter.

    This is the way it should be. I too feel that the previous RFD was
not well thought out, but I also think that steps are being taken to
remedy that fact, one of which is the current straw poll, which I think
will be sufficient enough. If the poster of the RFD takes the time to
post a 2nd RFD update, with some additional soc.culture.* groups in the
crosspost line then I think we will be covered.

>I don't want to cause things to drag on too long, but I want the
>process to be fair, which it doesn't seem to have a good chance of
>being if the vote is taken during a period when many potentially-
>interested parties are either on vacation or haven't even been
>informed of this initiative.

    That is why I think a 2nd RFD needs to be posted in early Jan with
an altered Newsgroups: header line that includes some extra
soc.culture.* newsgroups. Noone else need be informed.

--
-Brian V. Hughes
	     "If you could care less, then why don't you?"
Xref: sparky news.groups:24736 soc.motss:53179