HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD*...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:35:27 GMT

>In article <BxGn7x.L5I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
>ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
>> Dave Hayes voted. [...]  
>> Gordon, I believe you were speaking. . . ? 

In article <1992Nov9.215036.3717@metrosoft.com> 
gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>What we should be tryng to do here is discuss whether the guidelines can...

"Should be."  That was my point.  I deferred to you because you HAVE
been trying to talk about changing the guidelines and have NOT been
beating the dead horse of ex post facto laws.  I and many others are
tired of defending Rich and defending the position that new rules 
cannot be applied retroactively.  This takes up so much time that we
haven't even gotten around to seriously discussing the possible
changes that could be made.  

Thank you for absolving Rich of responsibility for the disagreement.

You have a tendency to follow up to a post in which someone is
responding to Dave Hayes, again explaining why we can't change THIS
vote, and in your followup you criticize the poster for straying from
the "real issues."  You're taking advantage of the fact that Dave Hayes
had led them away from the issue of changing the guidelines for future
votes.  I don't know if this is deliberate or not, but it's equivalent
to blindsiding us.  You're asking us to ignore him, whether you intend
to or not. 

>As for Dave being "disqualified" because he didn't find it cryptic  
>personally, it certainly doesn't remove him from looking at the problem.  
>If it did, ALL the people that thought it was just fine should be  
>disqualified as well, since they obviously don't see the problem.

Good point.  I retract my statement about him being disqualified from
discussing it.  I do not retract my statement that he should not expect
Rich to have foreseen a problem with the subject line.

My post was intended to show that Dave Hayes cannot cry foul on THIS
vote.  He can point out how there is perhaps a problem with the
guidelines, using this vote as an example of how a subject line can in
fact be misleading when not intended to be, but he has no reason other
than personal preference for invalidating a vote that followed the
guidelines and was not intended to skew the voting population.  He is
so intent on proving that this vote was unfair that we are forced to
stay on that topic.  Discussing this newsgroup renaming must occur
NOW, while it's in transition, but the guidelines can wait until we're
finished.  Dave Hayes has the power to move us on to discussion of the
guidelines, but he insists that we discuss this vote.  Until he either
convinces everyone that the vote was misconducted or admits that the
vote must stand, we're stuck talking about it.  

-sz
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Nov6.173929.17842@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> <42+qafq@lynx.unm.edu>
	<1992Nov7.060600.22559@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<CKD.92Nov7174508@loiosh.eff.org>
	<1992Nov9.111822.23659@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:08:44 GMT

Dave> == Dave Hayes <dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> 

 ckd> 'rec.music.synth' implies that it's about synth music, not
 ckd> *making* synth music.  'rec.music.makers.synth' disambiguates that
 ckd> portion of it, making the group more focused (and placing it in
 ckd> peer with similar groups for other tools).

 Dave> HOWEVER, now suppose we want a newsgroup for discussing
 Dave> piano/keyboard/organ technique, styles of practicing, etc. What
 Dave> do we do now?

You RFD/CFV for 'rec.music.makers.keyboards'.  Since not all keyboards
are on synths, and not all synths have keyboards.

 Dave> "rec.music.makers.midi" is technologically more appropriate anyway. 

Are all synths MIDI?

 Dave> "rec.music.synth" worked. Why change it?

Because the vote passed?  Because it's about making music, and should be
in a hierarchy about making music?  Would you rather it be rec.aquaria.synth?

In the SF reorg, the SF-LOVERS digest moderator made noises about not
gatewaying the new groups, and also urged his readers to vote against
the reorg (both times :).  The votes passed, and he split up the digest
mailing lists without ranting on the way you've been going.  USENET
didn't let the mailing lists decide *then*; why should we now?  (After
all, the principle worked.  Why change it?)
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: merchant@davidsys.com (Rukhsana Merchant)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Name of the Ahmadiyya newsgroup
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:54:09 PST
Organization: DAVID Systems Inc, Sunnyvale CA


	Some questions that I have:

1) In regards to voting on the issue of name of the
newsgroup, Does a vote go into effect after the name has
been decided?
(in other words, Is the objection to the name first clarified before
the issue of the acceptance of the group is put to vote?)

2) Where do we sent our votes?


3) Who tallies up the votes?


These questions have to do with the creation soc.religion.... ahmediayya.

Rukhsana Merchant
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.politics.perot
From: lon@edsi.plexus.COM (Lon Ponschock)
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.politics.united
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1992 19:15:49 GMT
Keywords: United We Stand


==>  One brief comment to add to this discussion:  Would it be 
possible to RFD to the talk.politics.* hierarchy?  This would make  
the group accessible to my location... we don't receive alt.* 
groups.

Thanks.

lon
-- 
   Question Recently
   Posed to the Net:'Kukla, Fran & Ollie' which one is which?
   Answer: Tom Servo is Kukla, Crooow is Ollie and Joel is Fran.
   lon@edsi.plexus.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:27:20 GMT

In article <7744@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
writes:
> In article <1dcc64INNeo5@agate.berkeley.edu>  
shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
> >It is clear from the guidelines that the CFV can go to any group at all
> >related to the proposed topic, and not just groups affected by the  
vote.
> 
> You're right; I apologize. That said, the volume of cross-posting from
> news.groups, and certainly from news.announce.newgroups, is small enough  
that
> it's not unreasonable to expect folks who care about uch things to read  
the
> messages when they appear in a given group. There was plenty of notice  
given;
> those who did not take notice and participate in the process - which is  
kept
> scrupulously open, for this exact reason - are accepting whatever those  
who
> choose to participate decide.
> -- 

Given that:

1) You (who seem to be pretty informed about net guidelines) forgot a  
portion of the guidelines. We're all only human.

2) Perhaps it's reasonable for a reader of a group to not know that ALL  
articles containing RFD or CFV in their subject line that are posted in a  
group affect that group (I'm not even certain this is actually the case,  
what with rampant cross-posting).

3) The subjects in the articles in question to r.m.s were sufficiently  
cryptic to the point where from the SUBJECT ITSELF you couldn't determine  
that the article dealt with r.m.s.

4) The articles started with the SECOND RFD for the topic (the first RFD  
didn't include r.m.s.) further confusing the issue to a r.m.s reader who  
doesn't subscribe to the other groups. A related point - if someone DID  
see the first RFD and it didn't contain r.m.s. isn't it likely they would  
ignore the second one despite what group it's on? Most of us don't spend  
all day reading posts. If many of us get through news.groups in 10 seconds  
(as one poster claims), you don't take much time to determine whther you  
want to read an article or not.

5) A number of people have come forward to say they were unaware of the  
vote.

Doesn't it seem like the discussion and vote were flawed? Even if it was  
by the letter of the guidelines, it is clear that many people were  
uninformed of the process that was happening. If it's as widespread as it  
appears to be you can't completely blaim the subscribers of the group.

I think claiming otherwise in light of the above points is merely  
defensive and expedient. It also seems pretty demeaning.

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:51:17 GMT

rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Yes, in fact, I do have evidence to support this claim.  I now have
>received 16 letters on this subject, 13 of which agree with my point,
>and 3 of which disagree with it.  Dave has not specified numbers, but
>his posts certainly lead me to believe that the mail in his mailbox
>runs in the opposite direction; if he'd like to do a quick count and
>post the numbers, then we could quantify it.

Of those which I will officially count (actual mention of support or no)
there are 22 who support my point and 5 who do not. There are 12 that
are unclear but biased towards my point and 3 that are unclear and biased
against it. 

>Oh -- yes, I have heard of hate mail.

Please, none of that. This is a perfectly natural flamewar. 
-- 
Xref: sparky news.groups:20925 rec.games.frp.misc:8044
From: lidz@quads.uchicago.edu (adam lidz)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Claymores
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:42:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov9.234246.17111
Reply-To: lidz@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

The Claymore, a weapon (mostly two-handed), was a light weapon (for its
size) used between 1500 and 1650.  (In clan wars, mostly).  They weigh close to
5 pounds (the two-handed ones, the one handed ones were MUCH lighter).  
I've never heard of a Bastard sword version, but they might exist. 
And, no, the two-handed one DOES NOT have the parrying guards.
(What is this doing in news.groups, anyway?)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: leave alt.folklore.computers alone, rmgroup comp.society.folklore
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 02:11:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.165217.13246@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.114417.5259@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>>In article <7689@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>
>>>There's only one hole in this argument: It assumes that comp.society.folklore
>>>would be just an average comp group. I don't see it that way; if it's an
>>>above-average alt group, it's very likely that it'll be an above-average comp
>>>group as well.
>>
>>I agree that comp.society.folklore isn't an average comp gorup. The
>>problem is that it might be non-average in the wring way. 
>>
>>To put it clearly: Lots of people out there (many of whom like
>>alt.folklore.computers) don't like the idea of putting a talk group
>>like a.f.c in the comp hierarchy. I'm not saying that they're right or
>>wrong, just stating what was pretty evident from the discussion
>>preceding the creation of c.s.f.
>>
>>I think one reason for the initial problems of c.s.f was that many
>>admins decided not to carry it. 
>>
>>So, moving a.f.c to the comp hierarchy might backfire, and result in a
>>*lower* propagation than it has in the alt hierarchy.
>
>How about
>
>alt.folklore.computers ->	misc.folklore.computers
>alt.folklore.science ->		misc.folklore.science
>
>comp.society.folklore -> 	(delete)
>
>alt.folklore.urban ->		soc.folklore.urban
>alt.folklore.college ->		soc.folklore.college
>alt.folklore.ghost-stories ->	soc.folklore.ghost-stories

Head for the hills, Bengt.  You've just committed the cardinal sin...
suggesting the appropriation of alt.folklore.urban for illegal porpoises. 
Phil Gustafson will be over shortly to rearrange your diodes.
Xref: sparky news.groups:20330 rec.music.synth:17767
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:09:35 GMT
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft

In article <JAAPJL.92Nov6104225@cmb00.larc.nasa.gov>  
jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
> This has been settled, IMO.  One claim by Dave H that the RFDs and CFVs
> weren't posted to r.m.s has been proven false (in the case of the RFDs;
> I haven't seen the CFVs reposted).  The rest is unsubstantiated garbage.
> 
Opinions can't be substantiated. What HAS been substantiated is that the  
articles in question hd misleading titles and a curious heritage.

> As has been previously posted, readers of the net ignore RFDs and CFVs
> crossposted to their groups (as these (apparently) properly were) at
> their own peril.  Ignorance of the procedures is no excuse.
>
What is this - a federal court? Apparently a lot of otherwise intelligent  
people didn't know this was the procedure. And at BEST the way it was done  
was confusing, even if it WAS by the letter of the Internet law.

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:34:12 GMT
Distribution: news
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Nov5.030317.10383@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
(Dave Hayes) writes:

>Apparently most of them were not aware of the vote until it was too late.
>Most people don't hang out in news.groups...and that raises another issue.
>WHY is it that only those in news.groups concerned enough to vote can
>be able to affect those who try to stay away from news.groups? That fact
>is actually the main reason that I pay attention to it. No telling WHAT
>you guys are going to do to a group given whim and vigor. 

I think this is missing the point of news.groups. It isn't really supposed
to be a group that people are permanently subscribed to, though some do: it
is supposed to be a group that people subscribe to temporarily when a group
proposal they're interested in is under discussion. That's why RFDs and CFVs
get crossposted to all affected groups. If someone ignores such a crosspost,
they are assumed not to be interested. This may not be the case, but there's
not much more the net can do about it.

In other words, the people you describe as "those in news.groups" are
supposed to be participants in the group concerned in the proposal. As far
as I can tell, this is reasonably true in general: i.e. when there's a
proposal affecting an existing group I take part in, I usually see familiar
names from that group taking part in the news.group discussion. They're not
the only ones taking part in the discussion: often, there are some helpful
comments from net.gurus and others who are concerned with the newsgroup
creation process in general - not to mention the occasional troublemaker :-)
And they're not all the people from the group concerned, but many people
don't have the time or don't particularly care what happens.

Anyway, some advice (to people in general, not to Dave Hayes specifically)
about using the system properly:

* If a newsgroup Request For Discussion (RFD) or Call For Votes (CFV)
  appears in a group you read, it means that someone knowledgable believes
  that the newsgroup proposal concerned may affect you. You're free to
  ignore this hint by not reading the article concerned, but it's *your*
  fault if you miss something important by doing so.

* If you're not interested in new newsgroup proposals in general, don't
  subscribe to news.groups full-time. But if a particular proposal you're
  interested in comes up, subscribe to news.groups: when it's run its
  course, unsubscribe again.

* If you want a reasonably low bandwidth way to ensure that you really do
  see newsgroup proposals and don't miss them among the noise on your
  groups, subscribe to news.announce.newgroups.

* DON'T put "news.groups" or "news.announce.newgroups" in your kill file
  unless you are totally uninterested in *any* newsgroup proposals. Kill
  files are a fairly blunt weapon at best, and this is a particularly crude
  way to use them...

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:22:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.171916.1258@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:

>In article <martel.721312155@marvin> martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo  
>Martel) writes:
>
>> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>>
>> >If you want something to be notice the LAST thing you  
>> >want to do is put an over-used term with little else in a title.
>> 
>> So perhaps Mr.Human Psychologist would prefer that over-used terms like 
>> "DANGER" or "FIRE EXIT"  be replaced by less common terms like 
>> "FREE BEER" or "DON'T PANIC" :-)
> 
>The point was NOT to use "over-used  
>terms". Thanks for providing a nice example.

I don't think that's much of a complaint; "RFD" and "CFV" aren't
over-used terms.  That's why they jump out at me when I see them -- I
don't see them except in unusual circumstances.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: kko@fraser.sfu.ca (Samuel Ko)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CFV: comp.archives.msdos.announce and comp.archives.msdos.d
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:08:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: sfu.kko.721645702
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

jjf@dsbc.icl.co.uk (J J Farrell) writes:

>I saw the new CFV (10 Nov 20:26 GMT) a few hours ago, and voted in
>response to that. This time I get

>> Your message was not delivered to   vote@tacom-emh1.army.mil
>>         for the following reason:
>>         Unknown Address
>>         MTA 'tacom-emh1.army.mil' gives error message 
>>         <vote@tacom-emh1.army.mil>... User unknown 

>Anyone know when I'll be able to send a vote that WILL be accepted?!

I've also received several complaints regarding this ... The problem
had, however, been corrected ... so if your ballots have been bounced,
please send them to vote@TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil again ...

Please note ...
1) Only ballots sent in response to the approved CFV (posted on Nov 10)
   will be counted ...
2) There will a mass acknowlegment posted sometime next week (probably 
   after Nov 17) ... Please read it to ensure that your ballots have
   been received ... (Due to the large number of ballots received, I
   can't send out individual acknowlegments) ...

Thanks.

The Vote-Taker (Samuel Ko)
Questions/Problems ==>> kko@sfu.ca
Ballots/Votes ==>> vote@TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil
Xref: sparky news.groups:21522 rec.music.makers:10943
From: jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement
Followup-To: news.groups
Date: 13 Nov 1992 15:52:01 GMT
Organization: AS&M Inc
	<1992Nov10.210351.15888@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<BxL3pA.CMK@unix.amherst.edu> <74623@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Reply-To: J Lee Jaap <J.L.Jaap@larc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cmb00.larc.nasa.gov
In-reply-to: jkg@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 12 Nov 92 22:32:12 GMT

In article <74623@hydra.gatech.EDU> jkg@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Greenlee) writes:
   >>I can argue for the fact that it is misnamed. Each other "makers"
   >>group has a specific instrument as a topic.
   >Really?  What instrument is "percussion?"
   It should be obvious - this is the group for piano players!

Hmmm.  In a book I'm currently reading, the pianoforte and harpsichord
are called string instruments.  Well, the book was originally printed
in 1965.  And I guess theory collides with practice again. :-)
--
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,rec.music.makers
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:55:27 GMT

jaapjl@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (J Lee Jaap) writes:
>As has been previously posted, readers of the net ignore RFDs and CFVs
>crossposted to their groups (as these (apparently) properly were) at
>their own peril.  Ignorance of the procedures is no excuse.

Again...the subject line of the CFV's was unclear. Based upon that
I suggest a revote. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Nasrudin walked into a teahouse and declaimed, "The moon is more useful
than the sun."  "Why?", he was asked.  "Because at night we need the
light more."
Xref: sparky news.groups:20821 rec.games.frp.misc:8002
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:47:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: sage4a.GOLDM.92Nov9114756
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

[Newsgroups line edited to get rid of unnecessary cross-posting]

I repeat my objection to this based on two things:
1) The traffic on rec.games.frp.archives, the charter of which includes 3/4 of
  what you propose to cut off, isn't very much (it even somehow escaped being
  tallied this month on arbitron statistics), and
2) Discussion of how to play or run frp games already belongs in .misc or .dnd.

The Grand Reorganizational FRP split was carefully tailored to provide a
legitimate split along the lines of discussion generated. The idea of cutting
the groups into playing games/running games/questions came up and was thought
extremely vague and likely people would want to read all three. What was cut
off were groups high in signal to noise ratio (marketplace, announce, archives)
that someone with little time could read, and areas people could participate in
or ignore depending on their opinion of D&D and comparison wars (advocacy).
But then you'd know this if you were around in May.
--
 Mitchell Gold     /  middleman of
 sundance@rpi.edu /  rec.games.frp.archives