From: strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:56:11 GMT
Organization: IBM Research

In article <BxoIMw.IJ@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov13.164753.35047@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|> >I think that multiple unrelated votes should
|> >not be on a single call-for-votes and ballot.
|> 
|> Part of the stickiness of this issue arises from the fact that the
|> votes *were* related: they were part of a concerted effort to draw
|> together several related groups spread throughout Usenet and altnet
|> into a single, more logical hierarchy.
|> 

Part of the stickiness of this issue arises from the fact that
your above argument is circular:  your judgement that the
votes/groups were related presupposes that people would have
voted "yes" had they known about the vote.  But those
who would have voted "no" because they thought the groups
were not related are the very ones who would be likely
to pass over a subject line mentioning only the "unrelated"
group.

 
|> >I also think that when there is a ballot with
|> >multiple votes, there should be a separate
|> >announcement relating to each of the votes,
|> >and that the subject of each such announcement
|> >should make it clear that a vote is in
|> >progress and which newsgroup the vote is for.
|> 
|> I think that would make sense, too, but I can't say that that should
|> be a part of the official guidelines.  Why not?  Because it would be
|> impossible to monitor.  The guidelines require that all RFDs and CFVs
|> be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups, so that the moderator can
|> ensure that the post is structured properly, has come at the right
|> time relative to other proposals for the affected group or groups, has
|> followups set to news.groups (or "poster" in the case of CFVs) -- and
|> so that they can be archived for future reference.
|> 
|> While posting additional notices to each affected group individually
|> is an excellent idea, and I think one that should be employed more
|> often, how would that part of the process be controlled?  Who would
|> oversee, to make sure that such posts went out and to archive them?
|> Should they all be crossposted to news.announce.newgroups, like the
|> original RFDs?  It seems to me that would kill the purpose of
|> n.a.newgroups -- to have a minimal signal-to-noise ratio while
|> simultaneously providing a focal point for newsgroup proposals.  More
|> informed users than I might want to comment on that issue.
|> 

It's not clear that you'd have to monitor it.  It's self-monitoring.
If the guidelines aren't followed, somebody's going to complain.

Look, the reason I disagree with Dave Hayes is not because
I think rec.music.makers.synth is a better name than
rec.music.synth.  It's not because I think people shouldn't
have missed the call for votes.  It's because he's persisting
in calling for the invalidation of the vote even though
the vote was legal according to the guidelines now in effect.

But if my suggestion were adopted into the new guidelines,
then if a future reorganization initiative were voted on and handled
the same way, I would support the invalidation of that vote,
because this time it would be in violation of the guidelines.


-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh