From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  Yes votes >= 200+2*No Votes
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:16:28 GMT

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec22050730@fuller.intellection.com> emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
> In article <id.UE0W._OK@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>    I see. You have decided (by psychic assistance, I assume) that the
>    interest level is too low therefor you vote "NO", artificially
>    lowering the interest level. Brilliant.

> I'll repeat it for you, Peter.  No mind reading is necessary.  I
> simply read the charter.  If the charter says the volume is there then
> I vote for the group.  If the group is of interest to us then I vote
> for the group anyway.  Otherwise, I vote against the group.

So, someone has revealed unto you that "volume" is the only rational
criterion to judge a successful newsgroup? I can't possibly agree: the
groups with the highest volume on the larger net are dedicated to massive
copyright violations and are illegal in several parts of the world.

> What is the standard line we give to people who ask, "I don't see an
> XXX group, what do I do?"  We direct them to a related or .misc group,
> or suggest that they start a mailing list.  We add that if/when the
> topic establishes itself and outgrows its first home, then they should
> propose a new group.

Who's this "we"? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather deal with
half a dozen low volume newsgroups than as many mailing lists.

> Any new group proposal should show that this path was followed or give
> a good reason why not.

Why?

> 100+ as a "sufficient" interest level is patently out of date.

Is it? If it is, should the number be increased or decreased? Yes, the
size of the net has greatly increased, but the quality of the technology
applied to news has increased much faster than the quality of the technology
applied to mail. News is now relatively much cheaper to carry than mail,
on a per-site basis.

> Put even more simply, I judge the quality of the proposal by reading
> it, just like any other voter.  If it is good, I vote for it.  If it
> is bad, I vote against it.  Shame on you for trying to blacklist me
> when my opinion differs from yours.

Can we take the "Hitler and the NAZIs" bit as read? The purpose of the vote
to me, as a news admin, is to determine if there is interest in the group.
Anything I can do to decrease the noise level in the sample, such as removing
votes I have reason to believe are essentially random (such as an
uninvolved observer's opinion about the "quality" of the proposal), are
entirely legitimate.

Personally, I only vote "NO" against a group if I believe that the name
does not match the charter, or if I believe that there was substantial
fraud in the process. I only vote "YES" if I am interested in the topic
and expect to read the group, at least part of the time. I am not
convinced that there are *ANY* other legitimate reasons for voting.
I certainly haven't seen a good argument for any.
-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Ferranti International Controls Corporation                'U` 
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012 USA
+1 713 274 5180                            "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.motss