Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen
From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: A Way to Combine Naming and Voting Processes (?)
Message-ID: <1989Nov14.202940.17347@everexn.uucp>
Date: 14 Nov 89 20:29:40 GMT
Organization: Everex Systems, Inc.
Lines: 88

>From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
>Subject: On Voting Guidelines
>Message-ID: <6853@ficc.uu.net>
>Date: 7 Nov 89 20:19:29 GMT
 
Jeff Daiell writes: 

>OK, there's a question on how to vote against all possible names
>in a given hierarchy.  How about this:
>
>Question One:
>
>  This group should be in:  
>
>      sci ___
>      rec ___
>      
>
>Question Two:
>
>  The name should be:
>
>     aquarium
>     aquaria
>     fish.domestic
 
I think that this is a *great* idea.  It gives so much flexibility 
to the naming process.  If you add a third question at the top, 
"Should a group for this topic be created?", then I can't figure out 
any reason why the naming and voting processes couldn't be 
combined.  You could also give numbers to prioritize names in order 
of preference if you were voting "yes" to creation of the group; if 
you were voting"no," you could just put "no."  To use the examples 
above: 
 
Question One:
 
  Should a group be created for discussing technical aspects of 
  aquarium keeping (Yes or No)? 
     
      Yes 
 
Question Two: 

  This group should be in:  

      sci _2_ (or "No")
      rec _1_
      

Question Three:

  The name should be:

     aquarium       _2_
     aquaria        _1_
     fish.domestic   no
 
This is a bit simplistic, but it gives the general idea, and I think 
that it could be incorporated into the voting schemes that are currently 
under scrutiny/debate.   I think that it qualifies as "simple" enough
to use, although it would be more work for the group champion or
neutral vote overseer to tally the votes.  As for verification,  
it certainly wouldn't be any worse than our current system, where
a vote can disappear faster than you can say "No on sci.aquaria." 
I'll be interested to read ideas/complaints about this. 
 
I also like Peter da Silva's format for showing vote results.  I find
it very clear and sensible. 

One more thing.  Regarding the hierarchical system that we have now:
I wish that it were possible to have the system be more like an index
than its current arrangement, but I've come to realize that arranging 
groups in hierarchies is very useful for system administrators, who are 
busy and can use all helpful measures.  I disagree with the people who 
are saying that the name of a group isn't important; you just have to 
try to find something in a book that has a lousy index to know that this
statement just isn't true.  Words communicate meaning, and effective
communication cuts down on time--a valuable commodity--as well as 
misunderstanding.  Language is powerful.  The more accurate and clear,
the better, IMO.

Karen
-- 
Karen Valentino  <>  Everex North (Everex Systems)  <>  Sebastopol, CA
                    ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen

     "Something there is that doesn't love a wall."   Robert Frost