From: JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: Removal of Unused Newsgroups
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:53:40 GMT
 <14491@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <1992Sep2.174509.10697@unlinfo.unl.edu>
 <92247.141328JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
 <1992Sep7.033622.23920@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <1992Sep7.033622.23920@unlinfo.unl.edu>, aberigan@nde.unl.edu (Alice
Berigan) says:
>
>JLM@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU writes:
>>gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) says:
>
>>>How about this:
>>>
>>>       2/3 (67%) of voters must vote YES/RM to kill the group, else kept
>>>
>>>       100 votes of NO/KEEP will save the group, regardless of 2/3 above
>>>
>>>That makes it reasonably difficult, and it does bear some resemblance to
>>>the current method of creating groups.
>
>> Anyway, the "100 votes of NO/KEEP" suggestion in order to save a group
>>from removal is not the answer either. It could be used against small, yet
>>*relatively* active groups.
>
>Grr... why do people insist on misinterpreting what I say.  100 NO/KEEP
>would override the vote to keeping the group, regardless of the ratio
>of yes/no votes.  If 100 votes of NO/KEEP aren't received, then if the
>2/3 majority isn't met to remove, the group is STILL kept!

 What follows is not a flame; so there is no need to growl ! :-)

 It isn't as much a question of "misinterpreting" what you are saying, as
it is a question of whether you realize what you are proposing.

 For example:
  A group of people feel that hypothetical.group.for.sake.of.example
 has no reason to continue to exist. These people then call for a vote
 to remove it from the list of active newsgroups. The group has 25 loyal
 readers/posters that post an average of 2 posts per week every week.

  At the end of the voting the results are as follows:

  YES/RM the group = 50  ----- 2/3
  NO/KEEP the group= 25  ----- does not meet the 100 vote requirement
                               to override the 2/3 vote.

 So in spite of the fact that *all* the readers/posters of the group
vote to try to save their group, they will loose it because 50 people
decided it was time for it to go.

 Now, you may (or may not) argue that such a group would not be considered
for removal. However, I've seen posts *by others* suggesting that if a group
gets less than a certain number of posts per month it sould be considered for
removal. One such posts suggested 17 posts per month as the minimum. So, with
2 posts per week, our hypothetical.group.for.sake.of.example *would* be a
candidate.

 Hence, we must ensure that we find a way of defining what constitutes an
unused/dead group while at the same time protecting small, yet resonably
active groups.

 Your suggested 100-margin does not provide this kind of protection, and
that's what I was trying to point out !

 I am sure someone is going to point out that if only 25 people are
interested in a group, that such a group would not pass a creation CFV, and
thus this h.g.f.s.o.e does not deserve to continue to exist. To that person
I will point out the fact that if the group exists it is because at some
time in the past it did meet all the 2/3 + 100-margin requirements for its
creation. Sure ! You might be able to get rid of the group temporarily, but
if the loyal fans manage to get enough support, they might create it again.
And the entire process just becomes a joke: have vote to remove a group
so that six months later we can have another vote to create the group again.

 If that ever happens it might be the time to start a brand new news-network.

-- Jose L. Martinez --