Xref: utzoo news.groups:13325 alt.aquaria:4226
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!agate!usenet
From: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria
Subject: Sci.aquaria vote in violation of the rules?
Message-ID: <1989Oct17.060301.1344@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 17 Oct 89 06:03:01 GMT
References: <8307@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith)
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)

In article <8307@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs (Gene Spafford) writes:

>The Discussion

>2) The discussion period should last for at least two weeks (14
>days), and no more than 30 days.

>3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will
>be moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the
>moderator(s) will be) should be determined during the discussion
>period. If there is no general agreement on these points among
>the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days of
>discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail
>instead of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the
>details among themselves.  Once that is done, a new, more
>specific proposal may be made, going back to step 1) above.

  As was pointed out on news.announce.newgroups, the call for
votes is in violation of points 2 and 3 above. I don't think the
net should regard itself as bound in any way by the vote, even if
positive. Why not just not send any newgroup message, and thus
end it?
--
ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!bosco!gsmith            "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."