Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!aplcen!haven!decuac!hadron!inco!mack
From: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: These new voting schemes
Message-ID: <5738@inco.UUCP>
Date: 23 Oct 89 19:22:04 GMT
References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <6618@ficc.uu.net> <5730@inco.UUCP> <6628@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack)
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems Co. McLean VA
Lines: 73

In article <6628@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <5730@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>> A most amusing example, which illustrates the problem with this scheme.
>
>Thank you. I don't think it shows a problem with the scheme at all. The
>information that it intends to elicit from the net is present: the subject
>doesn't rate a group, and people think it should go in the rec hierarchy.
>Later on if another vote is held, this information can be used.

Utter nonsense. Consider the following vote:

sci.aquaria:	80 YES 10 NO
rec.aquaria:	80 YES 10 NO
rec.pets.fish:	80 YES 10 NO

Under your system, no group would be created, even though this may
correspond to 240 YES votes versus 30 NO votes. I really don't think
this is what people would expect to happen.

What you're proposing is a formalization of the nebulous statement in
the group creation guidelines that a "concensus" must be reached on the name
before a vote on the group can be held. You're attempting to replace
this with a system in which the *name* of the group must receive 100
more yes votes than no votes in order for any group to be created.
If one accepts the idea that the name of the group is more important
than whether or not the group exists, this make sense. I reject that
premise.

Just out of curiosity, how would your scheme handle the case where
sci.aquaria receives 170 YES votes and 32 NO votes, and rec.aquaria
receives 110 YES votes and 3 NO votes? Create both groups?

>> It fails to separate the two issues which are actually being voted on:
>> whether or not a group devoted to the topic should exist, and if so,
>> what its name should be.
>
>Deliberately so. It's already more complex than some people are willing to
>accept. Why not work to simplify it?

Particularly when the simplification is to forbid the creation of any
group unless the name gets sufficient support?

I suspect that there are quite a few people on the net, perhaps a
majority, who don't really care that deeply about the name a group
has as long as the group exists. Your proposal is a disservice to
these people.

>> A "topic: no" vote would have no influence on the
>> name vote.
>
>No sir, people who don't want to vote for the group should still have a right
>to vote on the name. You're shooting down the very people who are currently
>the most disenfranchised: the ones who don't care about the group but want to
>keep the name in the right area of the net. That's what this whole debate is
>all about, when it comes down to it.

Yes, it certainly is. In the political world, your proposal would be the
equivalent of allowing the Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries
and vice versa. "I don't want a Republican president, but if we get stuck
with one, I want a voice in deciding who it should be." (Analogies for
other political systems are equally obvious.)

Your "disenfranchised" are the Namespace Purists, and what you're trying
to do is give them control, not just a voice. The modification to your
system that I suggested allows them a voice, but deprives them of the
capability to prevent a group from being created simply because they
don't like the name.


-- 
Dave Mack				McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems
uunet!inco!mack, inco%mack@uunet.uu.net			(703)883-3911
All opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of MDESC. Ever.