From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,news.groups
Subject: Re: RENAME: Those against name change PLEASE READ!
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:40:17 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

Followups to news.groups.

In article <iw54TB4w165w@midiline.la.ca.us> trog@midiline.la.ca.us (Ralph Stempel) writes:
>   As I said, I don't know what was wrong with my ballot. I did not see 
>another CFV, although there may well have been one. As I told you by 
>mail, the one I replied to had scrolled off here. There was thus no way 
>for me to ell what was wrong with the ballot that bounced. As I also told 
>you by mail, I politely requested another copy of the ballot. You said 
>you didn't get that request. Fine.

Actually, yes, you could have gotten another ballot, even without
my intervention: they're archived at UUnet.  Also, as I told you via e-mail,
*either* I didn't get your request *or* you didn't get my reply.  I did
reply promptly to all e-mail requests for copies of the ballot, but I
did not keep track of who made the requests because there did not seem
a need to do so.

>   I really hope you do keep it firmly in mind the next time you get the 
>urge to line everything up in neat little rows.

I have no such urges; why speculate on my motives when you only have
to ask and then you will know?

>   I was moved to some extent by your description in another post of how 
>you are an actual R.M.S. reader. I've read this group for a few years 
>now, and never having seen your name before now assumed that it had 
>nothing to do with you. On the other hand, I doubt you read it very much 
>if you seriously thought that people here would want, "Maker," crammed 
>into the group name.

You "doubt I read it very much"?  Why would you say that, when I've
clearly indicated multiple times that I've read it since it was created,
that I still read it daily, and that I contribute to it from time-to-time?
This is pure speculation on your part, and incorrect at that.  (It's
also irrelevant, as much so as if I asked you where the heck you were
in 1987 when I was more involved with it than I have been now.)  As far
as thinking what people would like the name to be, it's not necessary
for me to have an opinion: I asked the network, and the network answered.
A lot of your fellow network readers feel that the new name is more
appropriate (they voted for it); some of them feel that it is not (they
voted against it).

>   From the point of view of the R.M.S. readers, you did not build 
>concensus regarding the name change. I accept your contention that you 
>had no wish to sneak it through. None-the-less, that's what happened.

If r.m.s. declined to partipate in the process after multiple
invitations, I cannot make them do so.  Those who participated
were heard and listened to.  (I invite you to examine the three
CFD's, and notice how each one differs from the previous in response
to the comments of the contributors; many of those contributors are
people whose names you would recognize from this group.)  Those who
did not participate were not heard.

>[...], you should be DAMN sure that you have a concensus. You did not. 
>Because you did not, many thousands of dollars of comm-time have been 
>wasted, and you have probably had your feelings hurt. [...]

No.  Because Dave Hayes has raised a ruckus following a legimately-run
discussion and vote, resources have been wasted.  And no, my feelings
are not hurt: I've been around Usenet for 12 years, and have developed
a pretty thick skin.

>   I'd also like to address a broader issue. The huge majority of net 
>participants are not computer wankers. The net would be a pathetic little 
>nothing if all it attracted were systems people and CS students.

The net was actually a pretty interesting place a decade ago when
nearly everyone on it was a Unix hacker.  You might want to check
out some of the really old archives sometime before concluding that
it would be (or was) a "pathetic little nothing".  It was also a lot
more civil than it is now.

>   It is not the, "Duty," of the net.folk to study the net itself.

You're absolutely right.  It's not, and many people spend years on the
network without learning much at all about it.  But if they wish to
participate in the operation of the network, which includes issues like
the naming of newsgroups, then they must learn or suffer the consequences.
The responsibility of dealing with the operations of the net carries
with it the obligation of learning about those operations.

>   Lots of other people have renamed lots of other groups before without 
>the sort of objection that this rename has caused. Why do you suppose
>that is?

Actually, there have been a number of controversies before this one; this
is only the latest.

---Rsk
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth