Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Yet another alternative.
Message-ID: <1989Oct13.002514.16852@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 13 Oct 89 00:25:14 GMT
References: <6428@ficc.uu.net> <153@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 34

As quoted from <153@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> by dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill):
+---------------
| In article <6428@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
| > If you don't want a name czar, how about this:
| > 
| > 	Proposer comes up with a subject and a suggested name.
| > 	This name is a suggestion only.
> ...
| > 	People vote the name of the group they think this subject
| > 	should be discussed in.
| > 	No NO votes, but you can vote for the name of an existing
| > 	group.
| > 	At the end of the voting period, the name with the most
| > 	votes passes, unless it doesn't receive 100 votes more
| > 	than any existing group.
| 
| Not bad.  I think I'd vote for it.  It's kind a radical departure from
| the current scheme, so it would probably encounter a bit of resistance
| from net conservatives, though.
+---------------

One modification, though:  if there are collectively more "existing newsgroup"
votes than "new newsgroup" votes, the proposal shall be considered to have not
passed, and will have strongly suggested that the top vote-getting existing
newsgroup(s) are the correct place to post messages for the group under
discussion.  Otherwise, you have diluted the "no" votes into oblivion, as
another poster mentioned.

++Brandon
-- 
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc	     allbery@NCoast.ORG
uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery		    ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu
bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie)
Is that enough addresses for you?   no?   then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)