Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!enea.se!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se>
Date: 13 Oct 89 23:50:44 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 33

Brian (bamst3@unix.cis.pitt.edu) writes:
>I said:
>>  Take comp.society.woman for example. If we had had a news czar system
>>at the time, and the news czar had been Greg, the group would never
>>have been created.
>
>Oh, come now.  Greg wouldn't refuse to give the group a name just because
>he voted against it!  Only a real low life would do something like that.

You forget one thing. Patricia Roberts wanted the group in comp, 
and she did NOT want it in soc, not even as a last-chance possibility.
This means that if the group had been placed in soc, she was not
available as moderator. And soc would probably have been Greg's proposal.
=> With Greg as name czar comp.society.woman wouldn't have been
created. (All details from memory. Ms. Roberts have to correct me 
if I'm wrong.)

Actually, let's look at it a little further. If we had had the system
that Peter Da Silva proposed, comp.women would have been taken to a re-vote,
since it got around 150 NO votes. Say now, the proposal would have been
soc.women.moderated. (With some other moderator.) That group would probably
not have passed. Those who voted for comp.women wanted the group in comp
and would either have voted NO to the new proposal or abstained. Of those
who voted NO to comp.women fairly few had any interest in the group as
such and would have abstained in the second vote. My guess, failure with
75-50.

Note: I don't mean this article as an attack on Greg Woods, I just
wanted to illustrate what I think the weaknesses with an absolute
name-czar system.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic