From: gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo)
Subject: Re: CALL FOR STRAW VOTE: NATIVE NEWSGROUP
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:38:16 GMT

In <idoy.724554729@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> idoy@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
        (Mike Wilson) writes:

> ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleen S. Davis) writes:

> >Well, it depends on what you want.  The purpose of straw polls, in my
> >impression, is to determine what the best name would be in order to
> >give the newsgroup the best chance of passing...

> ...I lost sight of the Straw Poll's purpose -- as you say, to 
> find our what most people here actually want for a name, which
> is finally in my best interest to now if I want this newsgroup
> to pass a vote on down the line.

For this same reason, it would seem wise to wait to hold the straw poll,
or to consider the results of the present one to be just a first stab,
both for the reason that there are many voters (the several hundred
potential voters on the NativeNet mailing lists, who have a stake in
the outcome of the decision), and since, as several people have pointed
out, the way the present straw poll question is worded, it attempts to
ask two questions at one time which are dependent upon one another.  I'd
like to suggest that we have a straw poll in early to mid-January, after
a brief period of post-holiday discussion which gives an opportunity for
other potential voters to become familiar with the issues involved in
creating the newsgroup(s), which asks, in some form, something like the
following questions:

    1. Do you feel the newsgroup(s) created as a result of a successful
       vote should be for the purpose of discussing:

       a. only the indigenous peoples of the U.S. and Canada

       b. the indigenous peoples of all the Americas

       c. the indigenous peoples of the world, including, for instance,
          the aboriginal peoples of Australia and New Zealand, those of
          Siberia and the Scandanavian countries (the Sami), those of
          Indonesia and Malaysia (e.g. the Penan and other aboriginal
          peoples of Sarawak, those of Japan (the Ainu), etc., etc.

       d. other (please specify)

    2. If you have chosen 1 (a) or (b), would you like the group to be
       called:

       a. soc.culture.native-america

       b. soc.culture.amerind

       c. soc.culture.<something>.american
          (where "<something>" is one of {native, indigenous, aboriginal})

       d. other (please specify)


    3. If you have chosen 1 (c) or (d), or 2 (c), what would you like
       the "<something>" to be?  Would you prefer:

       a. soc.culture.native[.*]

       b. soc.culture.indigenous[.*]

       c. soc.culture.aboriginal[.*]

       d. other (please specify)


    4. Again, if you support the creation of a newsgroup hierarchy for
       information and discussion about the indigenous peoples of the
       world (not just the Americas), do you have any objections to the
       linkage between the NativeNet mailing lists NATIVE-L and/or NATCHAT
       with corresponding Usenet newsgroups?  If so, what is the nature of
       your objection?  (optional)

    5. Would you be in favor of the creation of two newsgroups initially,
       one to carry informational postings, and the other for discussion?
       (This item is especially important in linking Usenet and NativeNet
       forums.)  Would you prefer:

       a. soc.culture.<something>.info  and
          soc.culture.<something>.d

       b. soc.culture.<something>       and
          soc.culture.<something>.d

       d. other (please specify)

    6. If you favor an international indigenous peoples' newsgroup hierarchy,
       which has designated space for American and non-American traffic, would
       you prefer:

       a. soc.culture.<something>.misc  and
          soc.culture.<something>.american

       b. soc.culture.<something>       and
          soc.culture.<something>.american

       c. other (please specify)

End of questions.


         This last idea may be difficult to reconcile with the one expressed
         in 5 above.  We could eventually end up with something like:

                            soc.culture.<something>
                           /                      \
                        misc                    american
                     /        \              /            \
                info            d          info            d

          For this, and other reasons, I prefer not making the "american"
          node special, and starting with soc.culture.<something>.*:

                            soc.culture.<something>
                          /                        \
                        info                        d

	  This tree could be grown later without leading to imbalance:

                            soc.culture.<something>
                          /                        \
                        info                        d
                      /      \           [ This area left purposely blank
		american     misc          as an exercise for the reader. ]
		/      \                            :-)
	    north     south

I don't want to go wild with these ideas, but I'd like to work toward a
naming arrangement that does lend itself well to evolution.

Comments?

Gary
--
    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Newsgroups: news.groups