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: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:19:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.072147.8592@bradley.bradley.edu>  
dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
> 
> Either propose a method of making the process fair, or please just drop
> this fool argument.  I'm no longer willing to listen to you insist about
> how everything was done wrong if you don't just come out and say what  
you
> think should be done.  Guidelines were established to regulate newsgroup
> creation and modification, and those guidelines are well over two years
> old.  I don't know if they were different before then, but this is the
> first time I've seen where a properly executed vote was protested over  
this
> much.  Frankly, it smack of sour grapes.  So unless you have a SOLUTION,
> stop harping on the PROBLEM.
> 

I and a number of other people have suggested (and no one responds to  
these postitive suggestions) that the guideline should be that subject  
lines for discussions and votes should DIRECTKY state what existing  
newsgroups they would affect. Is this too difficult? At least it's a  
suggestion.

I can't imagine a valid reason for a "no" response to this suggestion.

> 
> 
> >Rich has appeared to be as fair as he can be WITH ONE EXCEPTION:
> >
> >My current charge is that the Subject line of the RFD's and CFV's (see
> >the factual posting I just made seconds ago) did not include the 
> >rec.music.synth group...hence people ignored the message and now we
> >have this state of affairs. 
> 
> And you are saying that this is adequate grounds to completely scrap a
> perfectly valid vote?
> 

In that context I'm not certain that it was valid. The guidelines don't  
specfically state that the subject line should be misleading. I and others  
feel it was. Even if the vote was "fair" I think a change is in order for  
future votes to avoid this problem. It's really a simple solution although  
I'm sure implementing it within Usenet bureaucracy would be difficult.

 
> My objections to your argument are:
> 
> 1. No Usenet guidelines were violated.
> 2. The requests for discussion and the call for votes WERE posted to
>    rec.music.synth.  How clear that was is still open to debate.
> 3. Users without access to Usenet do not have the privelege of dictating
>    Usenet policy.  We don't make policy for CompuServe or FidoNet, even
>    though we have some indirect access to them.
> 
> Historically, the only way a vote could be properly contested is to  
prove
> #1 wrong.  It isn't.  I honestly don't think enough people are going to
> find a bending of #2 sufficient grounds to invalidate the vote.
> 

I'm not so sure about this. Would it have been "legal" to post a message  
with a subject line of "CFV" and a message body of "Ok?". Of course not.  
This implies that the substance must be meaningful. To my eyes (and  
several others that have spoken up - and possibly many who haven't) the  
substance wasn't sufficient.

> As far as I can see, your only recourse is this:  follow the guidelines  
and
> have another vote to change the name back. 

I would be up for this - there is certainly a lot of attention on the  
issue now - which WASN'T the case when the original vote was taken.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:15:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Wavestation question
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server