From: evan@hpl.hp.com (Evan Kirshenbaum)
Subject: Proposed Guidelines Change from a Disinterested Party
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:17:17 GMT
Reply-To: kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

I've been following with some interest (but no bias--I don't read the
groups in question and didn't vote) the current brouhaha over the
rec.music.makers.* reorg.  While it seems clear to me that the
guidelines were definitely followed and the results of the vote should
stand, the opponents of the change have brought up a couple of valid
points.

First of all, I can see how the subject line ("CFV: rec.music.makers.*
reorg") might not grab the attention of someone only interested in
rec.music.synth and this is exacerbated by the fact that
rec.music.synth was not mentioned until some 26 lines into the post..
It is all well and good to say that people should know that any vote
crossposted to their group will probably affect them, but it is
manifestly the case that there are unsophisticated users who do not
realize this.  I think that it should be unobjectionable that if we
can *easily* attract the attention and participation of more
interested readers (sophisticated or not), then we should do so.

Unfortunately, there is no good mechanism for educating
unsophisticated readers.  It is all well and good to say that everyone
should read news.announce.newusers, but this seems unworkable.  In the
first place, many users never get told of its existence (or it gets
listed alphabetically with 1600 other groups).  In the second place,
it contains too many articles (25 on my system) for the user who
doesn't already know what's going on, and there's no indication on
what the new user should read first.  To top it off, none of the
articles on my system explain what the abbreviations "RFD" and "CFV"
*mean* (let alone that they are important).

I don't see that it is possible to come up with subject lines that are
short enough to be displayable yet meaningful to all of the groups
that an RFD/CFV is crossposted to.  I also don't like (for reasons
that others have expressed) the idea of titling all RFDs "RFD: your
group is going to be renamed".

What I propose is to leave the official RFD/CFV process as it is, but
include another mandatory posting posted to each of the
RFD-crossposted groups individually which spells out in more detail
for new users *that* there is a discussion/vote which may affect them.
The article can be something of a form letter:

=========
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
From: foo@bar.baz.mumble
Follow-Up-To: news.groups
Subject: Official Discussion:  rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth

There is an official usenet discussion which may affect
rec.music.synth as part of the rec.music.makers.* reorganization.

See the article from foo@bar.baz.mumble with subject
	RFD: rec.music.makers.* reorganization
for details.   The article is also available in
news.announce.newgroups and news.groups.

Following the Usenet guidelines, all discussion should take place in
news.groups.  Please post follow-ups to the RFD rather than to this
article.

See the article from tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) with subject
        How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
in news.announce.newusers for an explanation of the Usenet voting
process. 
=========
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth
From: foo@bar.baz.mumble
Follow-Up-To: poster
Subject: Official Vote:  rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth

There is an official usenet vote which will affect rec.music.synth as
part of the rec.music.makers.* reorganization.

See the article from foo@bar.baz.mumble with subject
	CFV: rec.music.makers.* reorganization
for details and voting instructions.  The article is also available in
news.announce.newgroups.

See the article from tale@uunet.uu.net (David C Lawrence) with subject
        How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup
in news.announce.newusers for an explanation of the Usenet voting
process. 
=========

The form of the articles is open to debate, but should be spelled out
in the guidelines.

The articles should be merely pointers, and should not include any of
the arguments or charters.  They should probably also not include vote
addresses.  Since people will follow up to them regardless of what
they say, the follow-ups should probably be set to news.groups and
poster respectively.

Such pointer articles would be sent out as soon as possible after the
RFD/CFV appeared in news.announce.newgroups.

The only downsides I see to this proposal are a little more work for
the person submitting the RFD/CFV and a little more traffic.  On my
site, articles in news.announce.newgroups average 3.325 crossposted
groups (not counting news.groups), so this wouldn't seem to be
excessive on either count.

Evan Kirshenbaum
    HP Laboratories
    3500 Deer Creek Road, Building 26U
    Palo Alto, CA  94304

    kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
    (415)857-7572
Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.fan.john-palmer,alt.flame,alt.bbs.ads