Xref: utzoo news.admin:14921 news.groups:32629 comp.groupware:592
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.groupware
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 01:39:13 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Jun04.013913.4916@looking.on.ca>
References: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991May31.022710.11297@looking.on.ca> <1991Jun3.183039.12660@gorm.ruc.dk>
Keywords: group creation votes preference

There are two things wrong with votes, and particular STV, for picking names.

a) The most important thing about a namespace is that it be consistent.
Selecting names by popular opinion will pick the most popular name on
a case-by-case basis.   A different set of voters would thus be picking each
name.   Does anybody believe this is seriously a way to make a consistent
namespace?

b) STV, while intellectually an interesting system, confuses a remarkable
number of people.  Even the reasonably educated Hugo awards constituency
(where it is used) is constantly confused about it and needs constant
explanation and re-explanation.  The same factor has been seen on USENET
with STV proposals.   We get enough problems with the remarkably simple
system we have now, and any controversy results in an eruption of
accusations, calls for checks and worse.  You think STV would do better?

Naming is not an important issue.  Because it is the only issue on USENET,
it gets blown up way out of proportion.  (Also because name and distribution
are still linked, unfortunately.)   Suffice to say that nobody else ever gives
names a second thought for online organization.  It's not even considered
an issue anywhere else, and on USENET, naming debates generate megabytes
a week.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473