Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,rec.music.makers.synth,news.admin,news.admin.policy,news.groups
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes may be right (was Re: To keep the r.m.s rename...)
From: hees@cubic.com (Phil Hees)
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:35:47 GMT
Organization: Cubic Toll Systems

On 13 Nov, I (Phil Hees) wrote:
>>
>>[discussion of dangers of a "pure democracy" deleted to save space]
>>
>>For analogy, I would be pretty concerned if people in Brazil (pop.
>>118,674,000) could vote on issues directly affecting Dix Hills, NY (pop.
>>34,000).

And nadeau@bcarh1ab.bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau), on 15 Nov, responded:

>Of course, one could argue that the entire population of the US can't
>vote on local issues in Dix Hills.  But the naming of groups in
>Usenet is not a local issue . . .  (Just like the location of the
>Interstate is not a local issue to Dix Hills, though it can certainly
>affect the lives of the people living there!)

Au contraire.  The *exact* location of the Interstate [the *exact* name of
rec.music.synth] is most certainly a local issue to Dix Hills [the readers
of rec.music.synth], and the impact on the community should be considered
when planning the route.

>What you are suggesting is that the people of Dix Hills should be able
>to overturn the vote of the entire country . . .

No, just that the people of Dix Hills [rec.music.synth] should have some
greater say in the matter than the people of the rest of the country
[Usenet].  The current voting guidelines don't allow this.

Actually, the Interstate analogy is a very good one; I wish I had thought
of it myself.  The building of the Interstate system was for the common
good, but it required the destruction of tens of thousands of existing
buildings, and ruined or changed many neighborhoods.  In most cases there
was no way to avoid dislocating people, but there were a few well-
publicized cases where highway planners could have greatly reduced the
adverse impact by a minor rerouting of the route, but did not.  In a
*very* few cases (remember, this was in the 1950s, before "Power to the
People" became a rallying cry), local pressure *did* result in a change to
the route, adding a small incremental cost to that highway segment in
exchange for saving an entire neighborhood from the bulldozers.

I see a strong parallel to the current discussion.  I understand and agree
that the naming of newgroups is not purely a local issue on Usenet.
However, the "entire country" may vote to make a change without really
considering the impact on the locality involved.  If the cost is not great
(in this case, a small non-orthogonality in the newsgroup namespace), it
might be/have been better to not make the change.


By the way, I want to reclarify the point of my original posting.  I
received several flames, and it seemed to me that they missed what I was
saying (or I didn't say it clearly enough).

The renaming of rec.music.synth, or any other newsgroup for that matter,
is not by itself a major issue.  (The amount of time we waste reading news
as well as arguing these points is a much bigger issue. :)  Neither do I
think a revote is a good idea at this time in the absence of clear
guideline violations (sorry, Dave) lest we establish a bad precedent,
although I will vote to keep the original group name if a revote is held.

What I am concerned about, and addressed in my prior post, is the danger
of a pure democratic voting system open to the entire net, and the
capriciousness of such a system.  After giving examples of such, I
concluded:

>>The renaming of rec.music.synth is a pretty minor issue, but it was rather
>>pointless and smacked of an arbitrary "administrative" decision carried
>>out by an arbitrary mob.  It could be the harbinger of worse to come.

I wasn't trying to be melodramatic.  The past record of the net is not any
guarantee that censorship-by-group-removal (for example) will not be
attempted in the future, and the current guidelines could make it
possible.  That is why I want to see some form of safeguards built into
the system, such as conducting a primary ballot on proposed changes with
distribution limited to the affected newsgroup; if this passes by a simple
majority, the call for votes may be issued to the net at large via posting
on news.groups and related topics groups.

One last point.  Mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> suggested (albeit tongue-in-
cheek), that there be a "Bill of Rights" for Usenet.  Actually, such a
document exists already - the Guidelines.  I would like to see this "Bill
of Rights" strengthened, refined and adhered to (the latter being my
reason for opposing a revote, the former my reason for carrying on this
discussion).

--
Phil Hees (hees@cubic.com)

"It's a terrible idea to remove newsgroup participants from the name-decision
process . . .  You have no guarantee that the administrators understand the
proposed content well enough to place the group properly." -- Tim Pierce
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth