Xref: utzoo news.admin:14934 news.groups:32643 comp.groupware:593 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!dkuug!ruc.dk!david From: david@gorm.ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,comp.groupware Subject: Re: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed) Keywords: group creation votes preference Message-ID: <1991Jun4.170128.26382@gorm.ruc.dk> Date: 4 Jun 91 17:01:28 GMT References: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991May31.022710.11297@looking.on.ca> <1991Jun3.183039.12660@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991Jun04.013913.4916@looking.on.ca> Organization: Roskilde University, Denmark Lines: 31 brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >There are two things wrong with votes, and particular STV, for picking names. The "votes" are really interest surveys. They are the only accepted method for newsgroup creation for the moment. I would like to address a concrete problem in this thread. >a) The most important thing about a namespace is that it be consistent. Not self evident. Are we not talking about groups of people discussing various topics? The question then becomes a totally different one. >b) STV, while intellectually an interesting system, confuses a remarkable >number of people. Even the reasonably educated Hugo awards constituency If people can not stack up the names in their preferred order they should let their betters select the name. People do not have to understand the system to participate effectively. >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 This is why STV is needed. Saying it not important will not stop it from getting blown up way out of proportion. -- David S. Stodolsky Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41 Department of Computer Science Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.1, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01