Xref: utzoo news.groups:15267 sci.aquaria:99 alt.aquaria:5019 rec.pets:9671
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!lll-winken!bu-cs!xylogics!cloud9!jjmhome!cpoint!alien
From: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.aquaria,alt.aquaria,rec.pets
Subject: CALL FOR DISCUSSION - rec.aquaria
Message-ID: <2990@cpoint.UUCP>
Date: 1 Dec 89 16:33:34 GMT
Reply-To: alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Clearpoint Research Corp., Hopkinton Mass.
Lines: 76


PROPOSAL

I would like to start a discussion on the creation of rec.aquaria.  This 
would have the following charter:
	- rec.aquaria:  A group to discuss the hobby of keeping, raising, and
			breeding fish, invertebrates, and plants in fresh, 
			brackish, and salt water tanks.

This discussion period will end on Monday 18 December.  If the discussion is
positive, it will be followed by a Call for Votes on that date.  This Call 
for Votes will only be made if Peter de Silva voluntarily withdraws his 
current vote - I will not run this as an interference vote.

RATIONALE

I don't think that anyone doubts the justification for an aquaria group.
Alt.aquaria has demonstrated the viability, interest, and volume needed for
a mainstream group.  The recent sci.aquaria vote gathered almost 1000 votes,
and managed to pass despite widespread opposition to the name and charter.

I think that there are two clear reasons why this is not a violation of the
'six month rule' prohibiting consecutive votes.  First, this is a different
group and charter than sci.aquaria.  This is clearly meant to be a forum 
for hobbyist exchanges.  Scientific input would be expected and welcome, but
the focus is on the hobbyist.  Second, it is becoming clear that sci.aquaria 
is stillborn due to admin opposition.  In fact, many of these have stated that
they would actually begin to support sci.aquaria if there was a rec group to 
remove the hobbyist traffic.

I think that it is clear that the rec.aquariUM vote failed for two reasons:
	- It was perceived (probably correctly) as an interference vote
		being run by someone who was an outsider to the group for
		the sole purpose of disturbing the sci.aquaria vote.
	- It used the suffix .aquarium, which is not the clearly preferred
		suffix among the current users.

As much as I would like to use a multiple choice voting scheme, discussion
of them is still active and none has been accepted as the clear choice, much
less as part of the 'official' Usenet voting guidelines.  The choice that I 
am using, rec.aquaria, is the leading rec. choice from the name poll that 
was run, and it also demonstrated the strongest support in the sci.aquaria
debate.

Finally, I should discuss why I am trying to run this vote in place of 
Peter's.  Let me be quite honest.  I was a supporter of sci.aquaria.  I am
also an active poster from alt.aquaria.  Peter was one of the most vocal
opponents of sci.aquaria and isn't a participant.  Furthermore, Peter's
current vote clearly violates Usenet guidelines (no call for discussion,
non-standard voting system).

Let me make something clear.  I am NOT trying to roast Peter here.  I 
suspect that he is doing what he is doing to try to 'fix' the current
sci.aquaria problem.  However, between being an 'outsider' and violating
Usenet conventions this proposal has already stirred the flames back into
life.  I would like to do this in as quiet and calm a manner as possible,
and douse down the flames instead of encouraging them.  I think that Peter
is trying to do the same thing that I am, I just think that this way is 
more likely to lead to a concensus that will let the whole thing die
peacefully.  I hope that I can get Peter to join me and form a 'coalition
party' to get this think quickly and peacefully resolved.  If not, I will
not call for a contrary vote.

I will not push for any kind of ballot stuffing or even heavily lobby for
this proposal, and I encourage others to be similarily restrained.

FINAL NOTES

As a relative novice in the process of newgroup creation, I would appreciate
someone e-mailing me a copy of the guidelines covering newgroup creation.
I believe that I have fulfilled the disclosure and the discussion requirements
of the guidelines.
-- 
--------|	Rest assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Alien   |   		would scarcely get your feet wet.	- Deteriorata
--------|     decvax!frog!cpoint!alien      bu-cs!mirror!frog!cpoint!alien


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com