From: cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: changing a newsgroup's moderator
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:03:25 EST
Organization: EnigamI, Inc., Nashua, NH
Reply-To: cory@enigami.mv.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <JIK.92Aug11220923@pit-manager.mit.edu> (news.groups), jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>In article <0105011F.ar35d6@dragon.enigami.mv.com> cory@enigami.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:

>my suggested procedure would have to be modified as follows:

>1) Discussion is started by a straw poll.

By "straw poll", can we assume that this is some sort of unofficial
thing, e.g. no RFSP (request for straw poll) posted to news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, and the group(s) in question?

Since this would not be posted to the interested parties, how could
such a straw poll be valid?  How could it be at all representitive
of the readership of the group in question?

Additionally,

Since this is a proposal to question the retention of a moderator,
the person making the proposal would need to make a case for the proposal
(otherwise, why would we need the change?).  

Given that, what is the difference between this new proposal and the
original RFD/CFV mechanism, other than the new one requiring *MORE*
busywork, and the other having an official notification to the concerned
bodies.

What is gained?


>2) At the end of a week, if the straw poll shows enough
>dissatisfaction ("enough" to be determined later), the discussion
>continues for two more weeks.  Otherwise, the process ends here and
>cannot be retried for some suitable period of time (to be determined
>later).

This is how things already work.  If there is sufficient interest
generated from the Request for discussion, discussion contines.  If
the requestor is flamed to a cinder, it will peter out.  If there
is sufficient interest, the vote will be called.  If the original
poster calls the vote against the tide of discussion, it will fail,
and the existing moderator will be free for the next 6 months.

>4) At the end of the discussion period, a vote on all the candidates
>who have come forward is held.  If there are more than two, then the
>Australian voting system

I agree that the Australian Rules should be used for ALL votes that
involve more than a single binary choice.

Your arguements about harassment could equally be applied to the RFSP
(assuming that it *IS* announced everywhere).  

This new proposal is not a order of magnitude better than the existing
system.  Why change?

KISS: Keep it simple (I will leave out the second 'S').


>By the way, how about fixing your news software so that it doesn't
>toss References headers?

I would love to.  Unfortunately, I didn't write it, and don't have
access to the source (it is a commercial product).  I'll Send e-mail to 
the author.  Sorry 'bout that.

+C


-------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Kempf                    EnigamI, Inc.
cory@enigami.mv.com           ...!decvax!enigami!cory
Annon:	wi.5036@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

"F' cryin' out loud, it's *your* life; shouldn't you at least examine 
your lifestyle values to see if they are really what *you* want."
										--Keith Lim