Xref: utzoo news.admin:7867 news.groups:15281
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!emv
From: emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Fixing the unbroken
Message-ID: <EMV.89Dec2015722@urania.math.lsa.umich.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 89 06:57:22 GMT
References: <7139@ficc.uu.net> <11832@cbnews.ATT.COM> <623@banyan.UUCP>
	<55499@looking.on.ca>
Sender: news@math.lsa.umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI.
Lines: 44
In-reply-to: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 2 Dec 89 03:47:21 GMT

Brad, the voting farce works.

For the conceptually simple groups with easy names to pick
and reasonable expectation of interest, it works quite 
nicely.  e.g. soc.culture.korean

For groups which have a slightly more difficult to pick out name
it seems to work OK, as long as the name-picker person is a calm,
non-contoversial, patient person.  e.g. rec.radio.shortwave

For groups with a lot of interest that appears in a short time,
it's horrible -- but that's what alt is for.  e.g. alt.sys.next,
alt.fusion.  

For groups which I've been waiting since boo to be created, and which
really should just be created (damn the vote, it's about time, what
are you waiting for) it creates some unnecessary delays -- but that's
what alt is for.  e.g. comp.lang.perl (I was about to type
comp.sys.perl there :-).

For groups which don't fit neatly into the hierarchy as is, it's
rotten.  I submit any method of deciding the names of these groups
is going to be difficult -- but that's what alt is for.  e.g. 
"soc.sex", sci.aquaria.

For groups with champions who are net.personaliites, it's rotten.  But
that's what (alt, biz, clari) are for.  e.g. alt.aquaria,
biz.clari.sample.

For groups which are reasonably happy as alt.xxx and want to switch
over to comp,sci,rec,soc,talk,news,misc, it would seem to be of mixed 
usefulness.  sci.physics.fusion took a long time, there's no easy
name for alt.fax, comp.sys.next was newgrouped without a vote, 
and rec.pets.fish never made it.  

I think that the voting scheme has been a good experiment.  Now
I'd like to see a change to it.  First is to force the group
champion to come up with a one line group description as part of
the call for discussion, without tying this to a name.  Let the
discussion ensuing discover the right name, and only then let
the call for votes go.

--Ed



Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com