Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Proposed Guidelines Change (was Re: A Few Observations) Keywords: backbone, oligarchy Message-ID: <7046@ficc.uu.net> Date: 18 Nov 89 17:05:58 GMT Article-I.D.: ficc.7046 References: <1989Nov10.045531.4549@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <36393@apple.Apple.COM> <1626@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <2562D3D9.16489@ateng.com> <5289@ncar.ucar.edu> <1530@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 34 In article <1530@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: > As the net gets bigger, there will inevitably be more and more group > proposals -- too many to get careful attention from very many people. So most people will continue to not vote. > But the larger the vote on anything, the harder it will be to get a 2/3 > vote. This completely contradicts observed behavior, where most groups get a NO vote between 10 and 30 regardless of the YES vote. Larger groups will have an *easier* time getting that 2/3 majority. Perhaps your confusing this with the 100 NO vote proposal. > 2. Groups will tend not to be created if there are even > a small number of vocal opposers, because they will be able to > generate enough controversy to make 2/3 support difficult if not > impossible. This again doesn't match observed behaviour. Groups with a controversial charter may end up with 30 NO votes, rather than 10, but they still fall within the 10-30 NO vote band. Even a little controversy over the name isn't going to kill a group: look at comp.unix.i386, comp.sw.components, or comp.object. > so you will be BEGGING for the very rule violations, > irregularities, politicking, and so on, that you seem to want to prevent. You got a better idea? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)