From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:45:03 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov5.030317.10383@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov 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?

OK...explain why that's not the case in the absence of obstinate gateway
maintainers who refuse to make the trivial changes required.

>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. 

Until you show that Dave Lawrence failed to do his job properly, and didn't
post the messages to rec.music.synth - not that folks failed to see those
messages, but that they weren't posted in the first place - this argument
falls flat on its face. It's _NOT_ "those in news.groups concerned enough to
vote", it's "those concerned enough to vote".

>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.

This statement of motherhood and apple pie, like so many others, is fine on
its face - there's only one problem: it's completely unworkable. Define
"participant", for example, in such a way that it includes those who read the
group but don't post to it in a verifiable way.

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

Au contraire - that's precisely the point: the group inhabitants you're so
keen to defend were notified, and had 21 days to register their opinion. They
didn't do so, at least not in the manner you're describing.

>>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.

Right. Actually, it's because someone decided to be obstinate and ignore the
expressed wishes of the net as a whole.

>How would you like your favorite group to be renamed without the consent
>of anybody in your news group?

If the net as a whole went for it, and I was notified that the change was
under consideration and had an opportunity to vote, I'd not object at all.
-- 
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