Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Sci.ad.nauseum.aquaria redux
Message-ID: <4848@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 27 Oct 89 16:33:00 GMT
References: <35951@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 44

In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>The major one is that the voting was
>started even though there is clearly *no* consensus on the name. That's a
>specific requirement of the rules, and Richard is ignoring it.

   True. When I wrote the guidelines I put the name agreement requirement
in SPECIFICALLY to avoid ridiculous situations such as we now have with
the aquaria vote where we are clearly voting on the name instead of the group.

>Richard continues to
>actively politick the voting in news.groups and elsewhere, even though the
>rules state that this isn't to be done

   Yes, hardly "unbiased instructions for casting a vote" which is the only
thing allowed by the guidelines to be posted after the call for votes.

>My position on this, then, is simple. I wish to see the sci.aquaria vote
>declared invalid for rule infractions. It's obvious that this whole thing
>is a politicking sham, that the rules are being used when convenient and
>ignored when not, and that the spirit of the rules are being demolished at
>the same time the letter of the rules is being ignored.

  Despite what some people think, I have never been a fan of rigid enforcement
of the letter of the guidelines. However, it seems clear to me that the
entire intention of them has been violated in this case. This is not a trivial
procedural infraction, it is a total ignoring of accepted guidelines, and
the creating of a situation that is clearly detrimental to the entire net,
just to get a single newsgroup created. As a system administrator, I do not
feel like I have to honor this vote even if it passes. It's a joke.

>I've asked Greg to invalidate the vote for these reasons.

  I'd like to, but I really don't have the power to single-handedly 
invalidate a vote. The best I can do is ask the other site admins
on the net not to honor it if it should pass.

  I'm not sure what to do about this now. Personally, I think Richard has 
blown it and that the only reasonable thing to do is leave the group in
alt where it is doing just fine, and then maybe after this whole thing
blows over someone can try running a vote for rec.aquaria or some other
reasonable name which will probably be completely uncontroversial and
pass easily.

--Greg