Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!inmet!justin
From: justin@inmet.inmet.com
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: You want one that fits in 25 lines?
Message-ID: <41800007@inmet>
Date: 13 Nov 89 21:44:00 GMT
References: <45326@looking.on.ca>
Lines: 62
Nf-ID: #R:looking.on.ca:45326:inmet:41800007:000:3612
Nf-From: inmet.inmet.com!justin    Nov 13 16:44:00 1989


/* Written 12:38 am  Nov 12, 1989 by brad@looking.on.ca in inmet:news.groups */
>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)

Great, but *how* does it get decided? If the group's future name isn't
*quite* obvious, someone's going to disagree, and there needs to be some
formal way to arbitrate that disagreement. And if that formal way isn't
spelled out in the guidelines, it will *eat* the nascent group in argument.
Basically, I think that you're glossing over a pretty serious issue here
(although I do think that it's the only problem with your proposal).

>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.

Agreed; probably the biggest problem with the current voting scheme (as
with all too many voting schemes) is that the populace voting, in large
part, doesn't understand what the relevant issues are. With a name decided
by a committee, some atrocities would be likely.

>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.

Actually, I agree here -- having a Naming Tsar would very likely be the
simplest solution, and the most effective. If they only had power to
control *where* the group goes, rather than *if* it gets created, it
probably wouldn't be a dangerous amount of power to consolidate in one
person. And I can think of at least half-a-dozen people who I'd trust
with the job, given that limited power...

>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.

Just so. I mean, rec.sex *did* get created, it just wound up in alt.
Nowadays, it's one of the most popular groups on the Net. In the new
situation, I would expect to wind up with a moderately better readership
and propagation; the really chickenshit sites would just refuse to create 
it when the newgroup went out. I have absolutely zero sympathy for sites 
that insist that the "official" hierarchies match up with their own desires 
for the Net. (And I'm still peeved at the members of the Cabal who insisted 
that rec.sex not be created at all, instead of just not carrying it at 
their sites...)

				-- Justin du Coeur