HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:25:12 GMT

In article <BxFEAJ.CFD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
ksdavis@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karleenus Schwartz Davis) writes:
> [Subject line changed.  Again.  Distribution changed from usa to world.]
> 
> >ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) writes:
> >> Quite pathetic really.
> 
> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes: 
> >As pathetic as not listening to people that are providing feeback and  
> >suggestions?
> 
> Don't you dare try to say this is merely 'feedback and suggestions'
> when you're posting under the subject line "*BAD* music reorg will not
> be honored."

Seemed to be to be a good idea to maintain the original subject line for  
the thread, as have most people. It clearly doesn't mean that is my  
position. 

> This thread was started by someone screaming "REVOTE!!"
> and the character has not changed much since then.

It hasn't changed in that there are a lot of emotional outburts - from  
both sides. The opening salvo of a debate doesn't mean that concepts of  
merit can't come later in the debate.


> Some suggestions
> for changes have been proposed, and are being thought over -- but
> notice that half the time, the suggestions are wrapped in a message
> asking for an immediate revote.

I for one haven't wrapped ANY message in a request or demand for an  
IMMEDIATE re-vote. At MOST I suggested that perhaps the manner in which  
the vote was held was flawed, and due to that MAYBE a re-vote was in  
order. Lately I haven't even said that. I've moved on but many are still  
arguing against me on that point.

> Explaining over and over why there
> can't be a revote takes precedence over considering new suggestions.
> If people would calm down about why this vote was "BAD," when clearly
> it was the fault of the guidelines and not the man, then we could get
> on to something more constructive like a rational discussion about
> possible changes to the guidelines.
> 
Fine by me. Read my last 10 posts. I think the guidelines should be made  
mor specific to avoid this kind of "BAD" vote in the future.

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 20:17:54 GMT

judy@vicorp.com (Judy Hawkins) writes:

>I didn't know there was a vote going on until I saw the message saying it
>was completed.  This is a vocal group, from the response
>to the result of the vote it's clear there would have been considerable
>discussion of the issue BEFORE the vote if we had been AWARE that there
>was a vote.
>
>There was no discussion that I saw, and I read r.m.s. almost daily.

I'm sorry you missed it, but it was there.  I saw it, and I participated in
it, and I also read r.m.s every day.

>I have a QUESTION -- is this renaming garbage the reason why I haven't seen
>any posts from Metlay or Rothwell etc, lately?

Probably not.  Where I'm at now, this newsgroup is still called
rec.music.synth, and probably will continue to be until the five-day
waiting period expires.

>I suppose a solution would be to subscribe to whatever I'm now missing -- but
>I really prefer using nn to mail, it's got a much nicer interface... course,
>now I'll probably get flamed for not know how to use some better mail utility;

Nothing is missing yet, and when the name changes it will still be there.
I use nn here and I don't intend to change.


>but actually -- one the really great things about a forum is the interaction
>of all the different people -- when you split the forum, you get two parts
>each less than half of the original.

The forum is not being split, it is being renamed, with the exception of
everyone downstream of Dave.


>I don't care about net.fragmentation or ballyhoo about Guidelines or how
>gateways work or all that: I'm one of the women who doesn't post because
>usually she doesn't have much of anything to say, just a lot of music to
>write.  That music making effort has been so much aided by people on this
>group, maybe one of these years I'll get up the nerve to submit to MUSENET,
>then you'll hear my real voice (words aren't it). 

I share your sentiment, but if we choose to live on the net, we live by
the net's rules.


>Please just get together and fix things so they keep working? instead of 
>squabbling?

I agree completely.
-- 
 davE.  Making the world safe for intelligent dance music.  dave@bradley.edu.
######### David L. Vessell -- Bradley University Computing Services #########
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cuz@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Cousin It)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Flame Bait Theatre
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:38:45 GMT

gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
|In article <7775@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)  
|writes:
|> ...and a fairly unimportant part, at that. I pay attention to every RFD  
|and
|> CFV I see. You would be well-advised to do so, as well.
|>  
|Unimportant to YOU. This whole issue was unimportant to many people until  
|previously. Perhaps, one shouldn't have to know the insides of the net  
|guidelines to make an informed decsision about the fate of the newsgroups  
|that they subscribe to.

	Oh well, their fault. If they can't take the time to figure
out what CFV/RFD means, and what it means when one of them hits your
newsgroup, well then, they deserve what happens. If it was unimportant
to them, they now see that it shouldn't have been. At least we can say
this vote made a lot of people aware.

|Seemingly several people that have spoken up were unaware of the policy.  
|Even if you think this SHOULDN'T be the case, it is reasonable that  
|someone would be unaware.

	They are unaware. It shouldn't effect us. In a perfect usenet
society, all people would be aware. In the real usenet world, people
learn to be aware.
 
|The cross-posting I meant (in this case) was cross-posting in general.  
|People see many articles per day that are unrelated to their subject of  
|interest. It's easy to become conditioned to that.

	Well, they should become accostomed to looking at all cfv/rfds
that come into thier group.Period.

|Well if it mentioned a group somewhere in the existing hierarchy of the  
|group (like rec.music.*) it would have helped. I for one am not a music  
|"maker".

	Oh, that damn subject line. What else you gonna put there. I
assume you have to put alt.guitar, and rec.music.makers.* (hey, its
where it is all going). Hell might as well ad sci.aquaria to, eh?
Look, a subject line is a pointer to an article, and in cases such as
mass reorgs, are bound to be somewhat cryptic. All proposals to change
this coming from this thread have been shown to cause more trouble
than they are worth. The easiest thing to do is not to change the
guidelines to something arguably worse than what we have, but to start
a mass education campaign, to tell people that RFDs are important, as
are CFVs, and if you see them in  a group you read, then you better
read it, or suffer the ramifications. 

[As a footnote, I read the initial RFD discussions, but I really
didn't care enough one way or another, so I did not vote. Just to show
i ain't biased because I am/was a proponent of the move]

  Cousin It                                     cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
        "To build or destroy, only you decide what joy"
                  -Last Crack "Energy Mind"-
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored20663
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:37:29 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1deivsINNq87@agate.berkeley.edu> shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
> it seems like Usenet would then be forced to become a subgroup of c.p.tcp-ip,
> and nobody could do anything about it.  Is this true?

Yes.  Democracy.


ian
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<2B0010D3.90DC@tct.com> <MJP.92Nov11103348@prudence.hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:36:08 GMT

Mike> == Mike Prudence <mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com> 

 Mike> There is no minimum level of knowledge required to read or post
 Mike> articles.  You can't assume that people know things.

Right.  But you can link "knowing things" to "participating meaningfully".

The point is not that people who didn't pay attention "broke a rule";
just that they (knowingly or unknowingly) left themselves out of the set
of voters.
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: r.g.f.campaign + scenarios
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:56:23 GMT

In article <1dnq0dINNp90@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>>Francis A. Uy writes:
>Mr. Uy was intending to mean (and what I believe most of
>the remainder of the readership of this group have no
>disabilities understanding) is that to have ongoing role-
>play on the newsgroups would be an unneccessary waste of
>overhead.

What do you define as "ongoing roleplaying"? If you're talking
about players posting moves and conversations publicly to eachother,
I agree with you, and they're not allowed to do that.  If not, what
*are* you talking about?/

>of this simple fact.  InterNet is expensive.  Postings of
>interest to only one or two or a handful of people are 
>better regulated to email.  
>

Let's try a simple exercise in logic here.
   If few people are interested in .campaign then few people will vote
fot it.
   If few people vote for it, it will not be created.
   If many people are interested in .campaign, then many people will vote
for it.
   If many people do vote for it, then it will be created.

Therefor, it can not be that .campaign will be created and few people are
interested in it.  So, what's your problem?

>Player moves, the ongoing roleplaying that you so strongly
>advocate, are of interest to the player, the referee, and
>the remainder of the part.  Most readers wouldn't care a
>snit over that.  Most readers would prefer the log of the
>campaign to be in a neat and tidy summary (as is currently
>posted to r.g.f.archives) so they don't have to stitch a
>zillion pieces together.
>
Have you read the latest proposal? The one before that? They
both forbid what you are talking about.

Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Organization: Homosexual Fascist Lobby, Rampant Paranoia Division
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:12:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.160823.2450@vicorp.com> judy@vicorp.com (Judy Hawkins) writes:

>This is a vocal group, from the response
>to the result of the vote it's clear there would have been considerable
>discussion of the issue BEFORE the vote if we had been AWARE that there
>was a vote.

Discussion of new groups and group reorganizations goes on in
news.groups.  RFDs and CFVs proposing the change are crossposted to
the groups that they affect.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: news.groups,soc.culture.british
From: hugh@sci.kun.nl (Hugh Osborne)
Subject: Re: RFD: Should UK groups be sent to UUnet?
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:22:18 GMT

In <BxJD5I.Lp1@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:

>I would be quite interested to see uk.politics, also uk.jobs (or is this a
>null set? he asked wittily).

This gets my vote (irrespective of whether we are using the constituency
system or proportional representation).  The whole uk hierarchy might be
a bit much, but a selection would be welcome.  Especially uk.politics.
But possibly filtering the hierarchy is more effort than it's worth.

It's annoying to only be able to follow that fraction of a discussion
which makes it to soc.culture.british, as it is annoying that I can't
post this answer to uk.net as was requested.
--
Hugh Osborne                              Dept. of Informatics
                                          University of Nijmegen
                                          The Netherlands
                                          +31-(0)80-65.25.99
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy,rec.music.synth
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:43:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.210351.15888@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>I can argue for the fact that it is misnamed. Each other "makers"
>group has a specific instrument as a topic.

Really?  What instrument is "percussion?"

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:35:59 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Nov9.213338.3543@metrosoft.com> gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen) writes:
>The damage that's being done right now is that people like yourself are  
>posturing so much that we can't discuss the real issue pertaining to  
>changing the proposal/voting process.

I'm not posturing...I'm defending YOUR group from someone who would break it.

I'll discuss your proposal to change the Guidelines as soon as you and Dave
accept that the vote was properly conducted and accept the results.

>Nice to know you'd be concerning yourself with the actual content of the  
>proposal...

The relevant content of the proposal would be that someone didn't like the
result of a fair, open, and properly conducted vote, and was annoying the net
by insisting on revisiting the issue immediately, in the process, setting a
terrible precedent.
-- 
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
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:24:16 GMT

plutchak@pilsner.geo.brown.edu (Joel Plutchak) writes:
>   There are many problems with your reasoning.  The biggest one
>is how you define a "participant."  By your definition, a participant
>is apparently one who has actually posted a message in the newsgroup
>during a single 3-week period.  

Granted that it's not a completely accurate analysis, but the numbers 
seem to make sense with the apparent data. 

>but ignoring the huge USENET population who may very well religiously
>read the group, yet not post much, is discriminatory and offensive.

I'm trying to make a point here. If I had data on those who do read
the group, I'd use it. You do the best you can with what you have. 

>   The bottom line, though, is that the newsgroup was voted on in strict
>compliance with the guidelines.  

Strict compliance with any set of laws is not a justification for any 
set of actions. (Analogy alert) Rodney King was beaten in strict compliance
with laws. Does that make it good? 

>You're using your personal feelings on the issue to take exception 
>with the "legal" results.  That's just dead wrong.

You might ASK before you make that assumption. My reason for starting this
ruckus started because I was made aware of readers/posters who were 
dissatisfied with the vote. Couple that with the awareness of the BBS
network (from where people cannot email) that the group is echoed to,
and is in danger of not being echoed to anymore, and you have my real
reason for taking exception. 

Feelings are irrelavent. 

I point out also that they are not "legal" results but "Guidelines" to
follow if you so choose. I choose not to, and encourage others to do
the same. 
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

       Love thy neighbor as thyself, but choose your neighborhood.
Newsgroups: news.groups
From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: Dave Hayes will not quit
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:23:02 GMT

In article <2B0186E5.61DF@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> Supercilious dismissal of futile whining _is_ professional conduct for
> Usenet administrators, who perforce face such whining constantly.
> 

It's very easy to call it whining and dismiss it instead of looking at the  
issues presented constructively. Maybe you should be listening to some of  
those other 'whines' you complain about. Usenet administration should be  
for the benefit of the readers, not the administrators. Sorry people make  
it tough for you by disagreeing with your opinions. You took the job...

> Decisions as to whether Dave Hayes' complaints constitute valid
> concerns or futile whining are left as an exercise for your local
> system administrator, who makes the important decisions anyway.

Thanks for delineating what's important and what isn't.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Music Group Reorg Disagreement (was Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:42:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <MJP.92Nov9114237@prudence.hplb.hpl.hp.com> mjp@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence) writes:
>        o However procedurally correct the renaming of rec.music.synth
>          may have been, I do not believe it correctly involved the
>          people who would be most affected by it.

They were invited to participate. They chose to ignore the invitation.

>Here is the basic point, I think.  In the interests of *fairness*, as
>it is now obvious that a large number of people who will be directly
>affected by the renaming *did not see the CFV*, as it was somewhat
>ambigously posted, in the name of common sense and *fairness*, a
>second vote seems the only reasonable thing to do.

Nope. They saw it, as it was posted to their group, and they had the
opportunity to read it in full. If they chose not to read it, that's their
problem. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that some folks DID read it -
by Dave Hayes' own figures, a substantial number of what he calls
"participants" in the group voted no - and didn't raise the issue further in
the group.

>To scream for the vote to be overturned *without a revote* seems to
>ignore the idea of fairness.
>To simply have another vote, with the added carrot of getting a
>larger, and hence more representative population voting seems only
>sensible.

You don't see how holding an immediate revote *is* to overturn the result of
the vote? It'd be like saying, "November 3 was just practice. Let's do it
again on December 1."

>So, is life so difficult that the people who put forward the proposal
>and conducted the vote can't say "Hey, maybe we assumed too much of
>the rec.music.synth readership.  There seems to be a problem, so let's
>have a revote to make sure everything is fair" ????
>Is this such a bitter pill to swallow ??

Yes. It would result in the destruction of the only process we have available
to determine the wishes of the net. The vote WAS as fair as the Presidential
election, and maybe more so, as no registration was required. Tossing it out
after the fact would be as unfair as tossing out that other result.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky news.groups:20396 rec.arts.poems:10946
From: hornpete@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Peter Horn)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: vote "no" on rec.arts.poems.urdu
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:59:03 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

Has anybody ever seen a single Urdu poem in this group?
I have not.
So why are you making all this fuss?
Peter

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Horn 
German Department, UCT 
43 Trevor Road, Lansdowne 7764, Cape, Republic of  South Africa . 
Phone Home ZA-(021)696-1983		e-Mail: HORNPETE@UCTVAX.UCT.AC.ZA 
      Work ZA-(021)650-2936		Fax ZA-(021) 650-3726 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Horn, Walking through our sleep (Poems), Ravan Press 1974
Peter Horn, Poems 1964-1989, Ravan Press 1991
Peter Horn, An Axe in the Ice (Poems), COSAW Publishing House 
forthcoming September/October 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ravan Press, P.O.Box 31134, Braamfontein 2017, Republic of South Africa
COSAW Publishing House, P.O.Box 421007, Fordsburg 2033, Republic of 
South Africa.
USA: Ohio University Press Fax (614) 593-4536
Britain: Central Books, Fax (71) 378-1811
Australia: New Era Books, Fax (02) 596-0045
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc
From: cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.frp.campaign
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:53:16 GMT

In article <Bx8rLr.6vF@cen.ex.ac.uk> ma90gjp@cen.ex.ac.uk writes:
>Can somebody please let me know how to get onto rec.games.frp.campaigns
>cos I can't find it.
>I've run out of ideas for high level (10+) scenarios and I think this group
>might help
>
>Thanks in advance, 
>                    Graham

Rec.games.frp.campaign does not exist at this point.  It is a group which
I have proposed be created.  Currently, the best place to discuss
ideas for high level scenarios is rec.games.frp.dnd.

Thanks for your interest though.