Xref: utzoo news.groups:24601 comp.unix.internals:758 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot Lear) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: VOTE: voting continues on comp.unix.wizards Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 90 19:05:41 GMT References: <18603@rpp386.cactus.org> <18609@rpp386.cactus.org> <18611@rpp386.cactus.org> Followup-To: news.groups Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 95 Aside from the fact that I have posted areas in which I believe the guidelines were violated, Mr. Haugh insists that we run through this argument yet again. From The Guidelines (slightly reformatted, but NOT reworded): The Discussion 1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted to news.announce.newgroups, and also to any other groups or mailing lists at all related to the proposed topic if desired. This group is moderated, and The Followup-to: header will be set so that the actual discussion takes place only in news.groups. Users on sites which have difficulty posting to moderated groups may mail submissions intended for news.announce.newgroups to "announce-newgroups@turbo.bio.net". Mr. Haugh failed to send a call for discussion of any sort to news.announce.newgroups, nor did he send one to news.groups. Instead there was discussion of comp.unix.esoterica. As that discussion winds down, the following ``guideline'' applies: 2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among themselves. Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made, going back to step 1) above. There was no consensus on the name, whatsoever. In fact, there was no consensus on who should take the vote, if it should be taken at all, and what should be voted on. Now unless (2) has no reason for existing in those guidelines, I suspect it was to handle situations such as just this one. Now if that isn't bad enough, we move on to The Vote 1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion might have been posted to. There should be minimal delay between the end of the discussion period and the issuing of a call for votes. The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a vote for creation as against it, and vice versa. It is explicitly permitted to set up two separate addresses to mail yes and no votes to provided that they are on the same machine, to set up an address different than that the article was posted from to mail votes to, or to just accept replies to the call for votes article, as long as it is clearly and explicitly stated in the call for votes article how to cast a vote. If two addresses are used for a vote, the reply address must process and accept both yes and no votes OR reject them both. The call for votes was not posted to news.announce.newgroups nor news.groups, the one group in which discussion over comp.unix.esoterica continued without a resolution. Since we haven't gotten beyond this point in the guidelines, Mr. Haugh has yet to break any more of the ``suggestions''. Mr. Haugh wrongly asserts that those who do (did?/will?) not read comp.unix.wizards have no reason to vote on the matter, yet his assertions are riddled with fallacies, the key fallacy being that of omission. In this particular instance, there will be a rather big mess if the group gets created, because many sites have aliased comp.unix.wizards to be comp.unix.internals. What would happen to a message that was posted to comp.unix.wizards, and then sent to a site that aliases wizards to internals, then passed to a site that keeps only wizards? Junk. The reverse could also happen. One could and possibly should argue that the system administrators should be more diligent in maintaining their news systems, yet that message has ended up in the junk directory, anyway. Thus, it may be in the system administrator's interest to vote ``no''. Yet it may also be in that same person's interest to vote ``yes'' just out of principle (who knows?). Mr. Haugh argues that these people do not have a right to vote. Then there are the namespace purists who don't want to see a vague term like ``wizards'' used. Mr. Haugh doesn't want these people to vote, either. In addition, Mr. Haugh continues his barrage of logic by claiming to have been in touch with a number of people involved with possibly another vote, yet he continues his to add to the confusion by proceeding with his current vote. Tell me Mr. Haugh, have you been in touch with Laird Heel or Nick Sayer? You, sir, were the last to join the party, and the first to wear a lamp shade. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]