Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!ames!pacbell!well!fico2!everexn!karen From: karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: One vote per site? (was Re: Suspicious Results of sci.aquaria vote) Message-ID: <1989Nov24.183713.5226@everexn.uucp> Date: 24 Nov 89 18:37:13 GMT References: <21910@gryphon.COM> <4323@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> <18175.25612d86@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <4199@nigel.udel.EDU> <6985@ficc.uu.net> <452.2562b158@devsim.mdcbbs.com> <1989Nov19.081859.2335@xenitec.on.ca> Distribution: news Organization: Everex Systems, Inc. Lines: 32 edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes: >Perhaps this is simply another valid point as to why newsadmins should be >the only ones voting on newgroup creations. They are the only ones on any >given site that do know who really reads a given group, and in most cases >will be the least biased. One of the least appetizing ideas I've read lately. What am I, the faithful user of Usenet--an idiot who can't think for myself? What is happening to *my vote*? This goes against the commonly held notion (and I'm of the mind that it truly *is* a notion) that Usenet is an anarchy, and should remain that way. This is another example of government by representation, not by consensus. If we're going to start the process of changing Usenet in so profound a manner, it should be an *explicit* process, and agreement to do so should by reached by consensus. I'm hoping that there are others out there who are alarmed at the suggestions to let others do our voting for us. I think it's pretty ironic that us "anarchists" are starting to move in the direction of government by representation--a Naming Committee, and now an electoral college. Blech. I feel my power in the group creation process ebbing by the minute. Karen -- Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA ..pacbell!mslbrb!everexn!karen "Something there is that doesn't love a wall." Robert Frost Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com