Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Give it up, folks
Message-ID: <36505@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 89 16:56:55 GMT
References: <127839@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <36442@apple.Apple.COM> <3016@com50.C2S.MN.ORG>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 52


>Is the value derived from a newgroup by the 500-yes versus 10-no that
>much more important than the value derived by, say 500-yes versus 401-no.
>Why should your strong negative feelings about a newsgroup prevent me
>from benefitting from it?

*My* strong negative feelings mean nothing. But a general strong negative
feeling from the network is a warning flag that something's wrong.

There are two things that I feel should be necessary for group creation:

o a general interest in the group. This is shown by having a specific
  minimum number of votes (currently 100). A vote that wins 10-0 doesn't
  give a group a mandate. Even though it's unanimous, what it really shows
  is nobody on either side really cares.

o That the general consensus of the net on the group is positive. Look at
  sci.aquaria. It's YES vote was, I believe, the largest ever. But that
  doesn't mean that it's the right group. The NO vote was also the largest
  ever. The NO votes are there as a moderating influence; if enough people
  (with enough to be defined) think there's a problem with the proposal,
  then the proposal should be tabled until the problems are resolved or some
  kind of agreement is reached. If you just count yes votes, there's no way
  to get any kind of perspective on what the yes votes mean -- they're votes
  in a vacuum. 

>But, if we are gonna change the voting system for
>newsgroup creation, let's do it right.  Let's give each site one vote
>and let the sys admin or designate cast that vote.

No, I don't agree. Most sysadmins are too busy to spend all their time
playing secretary for their users on every newgroup proposal. The effective
result of this would be to disenfranchise everyone except on sites where the
admin is a USENET hacker or is personally interested in the group.

Maybe the best bet is to use the Australian Prefernce system:

rec.pets.aquaria
rec.aquaria
none
sci.aquaria

and whatever name gets the consensus preference is created. If no award
wins, we don't create it.


-- 

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>    Editor,OtherRealms    <+>   Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com   <+>   CI$: 73317,635   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

All it takes if one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.