From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 5 Nov 1992 22:33:21 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov5.205820.145@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Even better...some sites that read r.m.s apparently are relays to other 
>BBS systems. I do know that there is at least one international MIDI 
>group connected to r.m.s...and they do not have email capability. Does
>that make them ineligable to vote? 

As things are currently structured, yes. To make them eligible to vote,
though, you would have to allow posted votes, and that's clearly a Bad Thing.
This problem is not connected in any way to the issue of rec.music.synth; it's
a generic problem for any such gateways.

>Look at the above. There are a lot of participants out there who are at 
>the mercy of those in news.groups should any vote come to pass. Is this
>a desirable state of affairs?

No, they're at the mercy of those who have email access. They would have no
voice, regardless of what opinion they would wish to register. They're also at
the mercy of other group participants who do have email access.

The ultimate solution is to get them email access, not to disenfranchise
everyone else.

One other point: If these folks are that far disconnected from the net, what
to they care what the Usenet group is called? They never see it anyway. Only
those poeple on Usenet care what a Usenet group is called.

>I am all for a better-organized net, but not at the expense of those who
>use it daily. The whole reason I am making noise is a direct result of the
>noise I saw in r.m.s against the renaming and the arbitrary rename it got.

They had their chance to vote. They blew it. Tough cookies.

>Look, all the current policies have succeeded in doing is getting news admins
>like me (and others) to not honor the results of the vote. I do so for the
>help and health of the net.citizens (not just the news.admins). Wouldn't be 
>a lot better if everybody who uses a newsgroup could come to a consensus,
>instead of a cadre of flamers like us? 

You're ignoring the strong, and growing, opinion that a better organized net
IS for the "help and health" (is someone really going to get physically ill if
they don't get their daily dose of rec.music.synth?) of the net citizens.
Further, keeping news admins happy IS beneficial for the users; an unhappy
admin will just chop away at the groups his site gets and passes along.

The consensus MUST include more than the users of a group; it must include
those who administer news systems. The current process is the only agreed-upon
method of doing so. The users of r.m.s had ample notice, and ample
opportunity; their silence doomed them to accept whatever those who had and
expressed opinions came up with.

>>Show me that admins would agree to having control taken out of their hands,
>>and I'll think about how to implement the restriction on voting you suggest.
>You may have put your finger on the problem. 

This is not a bug, but a feature; that control is what enables you to ignore
the wishes of the rest of the net in the first place.

>Not all of them. Some work on user interfaces, some work on digital signal
>processing algortihms...some even make random noises in hopes of getting
>a good sounding patch. 

...but all of it is in the furtherance of making music, non?

>>Single Transferrable Vote system is a good way to get there. Even so, until
>>the Guidelines reflect that, living within them is much preferable to living
>>without them, for that way lies alt.*. 
>My highest priority is the net.users...not the Guidelines. This case has
>demonstrated to me that in this situation, the Guidelines are not preferable.
>I and my site remain opposed to this result. 

...and you and your site will become a little island of obstinacy in a sea of
cooperation. The Guidelines are not perfect - indeed, there's more than a
little argument in favor of the proposition that they're far from it - but
they do work. They have produced results I disagree with, but I put up with
them anyway.

>There's nothing wrong with opposing a counter-productive action. It would
>be wrong NOT to oppose it, in my mind. 

...except that your opposition, and the method you choose to demonstrate it,
will hurt the very users you claim to champion.  
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy