Xref: utzoo news.groups:24358 comp.unix.internals:605 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!Ra.MsState.Edu!fwp1 From: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: "vote" to re-create comp.unix.wizards Message-ID: Date: 11 Oct 90 14:03:16 GMT References: <18571@rpp386.cactus.org> <27120776.717A@tct.uucp> <18581@rpp386.cactus.org> <18585@rpp386.cactus.org> Sender: usenet@ra.MsState.Edu Followup-To: news.groups Organization: /home0/cc/fwp1/.organization Lines: 45 Nntp-Posting-Host: ra.msstate.edu In-reply-to: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org's message of 11 Oct 90 04:28:22 GMT In article <18585@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: In article epeterson@encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes: >Huh?!? What kind of guidelines are these? If mean that *a* set of >guidelines has been followed, well, yeah, that's true. But if you >mean that *the* Guidelines have been followed, which I'm sure you do >since you are proposing a new group and since there are specific >guidelines for that action, then you're wrong. you will notice that in virtually all of the part of the guidelines you quoted the word "should" was present. not "must", but rather "should", or "may", or "might". these guidelines are meant to serve as guidelines - a "guideline" is an overview or outline of expected behavior. these are not rules cast in stone. Well, if you carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion you don't really *NEED* to hold a vote at all. You could just newgroup c.u.w and have done with it right? So just go ahead and create it. Oh!! Wait! We tried that one already didn't we??? Oops. Trust me, if a newgroup comes out as a result of this vote that ignores all of those optional guidlines it won't get much farther than the last one did. also, comp.unix.wizards is not a "new" group - it is an "old" group. the guidelines don't even begin to address issues such as re-creating a group which was freshly removed. Funny, I don't see it in my active file. Perhaps you missed the rmgroup that came out a while back? The one that resulted from a vote that did follow all of those optional guidelines? When that vote passed and the rmgroup issued c.u.w ceased to exist as a group. Perhaps that was a mistake. Any effort to create c.u.w now is the creation of a new group...admittedly with special circumstances. But not enough special circumstances to justify ignoring the guidelines that keep usenet from sliding from the goofy to the totally ridiculous. FWP -- -- Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921