From: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Subject: Re: rec.music.makers.*: chronology and comments from the vote-taker.
Reply-To: gvh@metrosoft.com (Gordon Van Huizen)
Organization: Metrosoft
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:11:14 GMT

In article <96646@netnews.upenn.edu> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich  
Kulawiec) writes:
> 
> The problem is that there's no way to cram all this on the "Subject"
> line without running into trouble.  If you wish to argue that
> something like "rec.music.synth->rec.music.makers.synth" should be
> on the "Subject" line, then I hope you will also argue that
> "alt.guitar->rec.music.makers.guitar",  
"alt.bass->rec.music.makers.bass",
> and "alt.guitar.tab->rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature" should also
> be on the "Subject" line, since those proposals are of greater impact
> (see argument in above paragraph) than the rec.music.synth renaming.

I *do* agree that all affected groups should have been notified in a clear  
manner.

> At this point, the "Subject" line is sitting at around 158 characters,
> and that's without mentioning the rec.music.makers.percussion proposal,
> which, as I said above, is probably the most significant proposal of  
all.
> 

Send seperate articles with different subject lines to the affected group.  
Even a small message which is a pointer to the one with your exiting  
subject line would have been a help.

> I picked the "Subject" line that I did because I felt that it best
> characterized the entire thrust of the five proposals; at no time
> did I intend to "mislead" anyone, as has been alleged.  (Sheesh, if
> I was trying to hide this under a basket, there would have been 1 CFD
> and 1 CFV, because that would have minimized the chances of someone
> seeing it and objecting.)
> 
I don't doubt for a moment that you had the best of intentions. I also  
agree that the existing subject line is logically correct even if it  
doesn't tell the whole story. I just think there should have been a better  
attempt to make the impact clear and the affected existing groups aware of  
it.

> Let me make a point before that has not been addressed yet: a number
> of people who are now vociferously objecting to the outcome of the
> vote were aware of the CFD's, or the CFV's, or both.  (I know this
> because I have copies of their followup articles and letters to the
> CFD's, and/or copies of their submitted votes.)  If these people
> felt that the "Subject" line on the CFV was misleading, why did they
> not post an article to rec.music.synth *while the vote was in progress*
> that looked like this:
> 
> 	From: A concerned person
> 	Subject: IMPORTANT vote affecting rec.music.synth in progress
> 
> 	There is an important vote affecting the name of rec.music.synth
> 	currently in progress.  The article calling for votes is
> 	<BvAK0q.CA6@uunet.uu.net> its "Subject" line is
> 	"CFV: rec.music.makers.* groups" and it was posted to 
> 	news.announce.newgroups, news.groups, rec.music.makers,
> 	rec.music.synth, alt.guitar, alt.guitar.bass, and alt.guitar.tab.
> 
> 	There are five proposals on the ballot, the fifth of which
> 	(proposal E), concerns renmaing rec.music.synth to
> 	rec.music.makers.synth.  If you have an opinion on this issue,
> 	please take the time to find this article and submit a vote.
> 
> 	I think you should vote <this way> because <reasons>.
> 
> 	Sincerely,
> 	A concerned person
> 
> These people were free to choose any eye-catching "Subject" line they
> liked, and to post this article as often as they liked.  Perhaps someone
> actually did this, but I have been unable to find any evidence of it
> during an extensive search of the archives.
> 

This is a VERY good point. I hadn't seen the original article. I wish  
someone that had would have said something about it. I don't know as that  
would remove your responsibilty however for an unclear subject line.

> I should also point out that I received no correspondence from anyone
> objecting to the "Subject" line while the vote was taking place.
> 

That's because most people affected didn't know it was taking place.  
(Circular argument).

Gordon
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Van Huizen           vox: 619.488.9411  fax: 619.488.3045
Metrosoft                   gvh@metrosoft.com [NeXTmail welcome]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups