Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: To be or not to be anarchy (was Re: Results of sci.aquaria vote)
Summary: Jeff Medcalf proves my point
Message-ID: <7170@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 1 Dec 89 11:23:59 GMT
References: <2903@viper.Lynx.MN.Org> <528@panix.UUCP> <36510@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Dec1.000318.17197@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 25



  Jeff Medcalf's analysis showing that each Usenet *site* is an
autocracy just proves my point that we have nothing to lose by
leaving Usenet itself as an anarchy.

  Since site admins already have the power to determine what news
comes into their sites, they don't *need* sole power to determine
what groups get created.

  For that matter, we don't need a 2/3 rule, or a 100-NOs-kills-it
rule.  We might need a separate vote on a group name (conductable
simultaneously with the yes-no balloting), but if we go that
route, we can make the YES-NO balloting *more* conducive to
group creation, since we will have reduced the risk of bad
naming.  How about: 100 YES votes means it gets created, period?


Jeff Daiell

-- 
         "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ...
        Oh, Lord,  please don't let me be misunderstood!"

                              -- The Animals


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com