Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: You want one that fits in 25 lines?
Message-ID: <46614@looking.on.ca>
Date: 12 Nov 89 05:38:06 GMT
References: <45326@looking.on.ca> <41800006@inmet>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 31
Class: discussion

How to rename a trial group into mainstream USENET?  I would be surprised
if, in 99% of all cases, an independent experienced netter couldn't come
up with a good descriptive name for the move.

In the remaining 1% (or more, if you think so) let them hash it out *in*
the trial group, without annoying the rest of the net.   Have a vote if you
must, or have somebody in the trial group who really opposes the independent
suggestion have a run-off vote between the independent suggestion an an
alternate.  (Announce once in news.announce.newgroups or similar group)

But in most cases let's not pick the name by committee.  A naming scheme must
be understandable, but most importantly, it must be *consistent*.  Names
chosen in a series of votes or through 'net concenus' (whatever that is) will
not be consistent.   If it's not consistent, it doesn't serve the purpose for
which it is intended.

Sadly, the case for the illusion of democracy is also strong, which is why we
have what we have now -- but it reduces the utility of the naming scheme.
I would be willing to say *all* names be chosen by a disinterested experienced
netter, but other people seem to resist that.   They resist it for a valid
reason -- it's difficult to feel you can trust one person.  But I do know
(and recent events prove it) that we can't trust the committee of 500.  We can
be sure that they will be inconsistent.

A tougher problem is now to deal with rec.sex.  That group was passed and
not created, due to 'the cabal.'  What would we do today if such a group were
proposed?  I can't imagine a single democracy-like test (including my readership
level test) that wouldn't be passed by rec.sex.  In the end, it would just
come down to scared sysadmins not forwarding the group as they wish, I guess.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473