Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!d75!awdprime!fenway!mjones From: mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: A Modest Proposal... Message-ID: <877@awdprime.UUCP> Date: 15 Nov 89 22:30:18 GMT Article-I.D.: awdprime.877 References: none Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP Reply-To: mjones@fenway.tcspa.ibm.com (Mike Jones) Lines: 29 I would like to make a simple proposal here - very little original in it, but it ties together several ideas that have been batted around recently in a new way. 1) When a new group is proposed, a group by the name of news.new. will be created by the moderator of news.groups. will be chosen by the person proposing the group. For example, news.new.sci.aquaria. Since this group is in news.all, it should get wide coverage. Postings to this group should contain *only* proposed alternate names. It should exist for the duration of the discussion period. At the end of the discussion period, the names will be collected and we move to step 2. 2) The news.new. group will be rmgroup'ed, and a group named news.vote. will be created. The first posting to the group will be the list of names gathered from news.new.. Voting is done by following up the original posting with your favored ordering of the names a la the STV scheme. Since the two biggest complaints about STV were that it would be difficult to explain to people and difficult to count/verify, having the votes semi-automated (by the followup scheme) and public (anybody can count them) should make the entire process somewhat less flammable. Most other procedures would remain as they are today (i.e., duration of vote, duration of discussion, etc.. Comments? Opposing viewpoints? Flames? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Jones | When everything has been seen to work, all AIX Kernel Development | integrated, you have four more months work to do. Kingston, NY | - Charles Portman, ICL