From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:03:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: bradley.1992Nov5.200348.5852
Organization: Bradley University

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>>Changing the name of the group doesn't affect people on any gatewayed mailing
>>lists as long as the people responsible for the gateways update the group name
>>promptly.
>
>That's an interesting assumption. Are you sure?

What the hell kind of a question is that?  Are YOU sure?  Maybe you should
check a few of these things, Mr. Sysadmin, before you go blathering about
the net?


>>So where were these hordes of r.m.synth posters who oppose the change?
>
>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. 

That might be the first valid objection you've come up with.  When I
moderated the creation of rec.music.industrial, I conducted discussion in a
lot more areas than just news.groups, in spite of what the guidelines
dictate, because I knew a lot of people wouldn't make it over there.  Now
maybe there wasn't that kind of discussion in this instance, but it was
discussed SOME or else I would never have known about it, because I don't
read news.groups either.


>I assert that it is unfair to change the name of a newsgroup without the
>consent of a plurality of the participants. If it takes me to make enough
>noise and bother to get this across to where it's "written somewhere", then
>so be it. You and many others must be aware that this is one of the number
>one complaints about newsgroup reorgs.

The guidelines, I feel, go above and beyond reasonability to insure a solid
plurality.  New newsgroups do not pass by a simple majority.  A two-thirds
margin AND a 100 vote margin, which frequently means that a group needs
about 90 percent yes votes to pass.  Is that not good enough for you?


>>It's not like this vote was conducted in secret.
>
>That's not the point anymore. 

SO TELL ME, WHAT IS THE POINT?  DOES YOUR ORIGINAL POINT NOT SUIT YOU
ANYMORE?


>>What makes you think that rec.music.makers.synth is going to be any
>>different?
>
>Because God knows *where* that newsgroup was gatewayed! There may be a loss
>of many participants just because somebody decided on an arbitrary name change.

At this point, how can they not be aware of the change?  The name change
has been announced and now if a site loses their connection, they'll know
wny, and they'll take the steps necessary to reconnect.  Is that so hard?


>>If you can come up with evidence of that, you've got a case -- the vote
>>was very close.  
>
>Define "evidence". 

Oh, I don't know, like substantial proof and not just your word against
ours?  Look it up in the dictionary, for crissake.

>>But aside from any uncounted "no" votes, none of the
>>issues you raise are sufficient to invalidate the vote results for the
>>entire net. 
>
>How would you like your favorite group to be renamed without the consent
>of anybody in your news group?

You can't prove that this happened.  Posting articles is not the only way
to participate in a newsgroup.

Besides, my YES vote wasn't counted.  Does that mean if you get the vote
overturned, I can stop you?
-- 
 davE.  Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
######### David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
Newsgroups: news.groups