Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Vote Fraud and Newsgroups
Message-ID: <777@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 17:02:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: lsuc.777
Posted: Sat Aug 31 17:02:44 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 17:10:37 EDT
References: <755@vortex.UUCP>
Reply-To: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 70
Summary: mod.news.group proposed - call for moderator

Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.UUCP) has made a number of criticisms
of the standard newsgroup creation process.  One of his points is:

> One thing we can do ... All newsgroup voting should
> be conducted via a disinterested third party.  The person who
> proposes a group should not be the one to count the votes and
> receive the arguments.  A third party should be the one with
> this "honor," ideally someone who couldn't care less about the
> proposed group in question.

I think that what we really want is mod.news.group.

If we had mod.news.group, the procedure for creating a group could be:

   [1] Demonstrate need by traffic elsewhere (same as now).

   [2] Post a message to mod.news.group proposing the group.

   [3] Both followup arguments AND simple votes are sent to
       mod.news.group.  Simple votes are buffered by the moderator.
       New contributions, like arguments for or against the group
       or proposed name changes, are posted.  The moderator may
       call for a sub-vote on these, if appropriate.

   [4] After a suitable time, the moderator posts a summary message
       containing a list of everyone who voted and which way,
       a summary of points of view expressed, their [the moderator's] own
       statement of the apparent consensus.

   [5] The group is then created, or not.

Newsgroup deletions would work the same way, except for the reversal
of the sense of the test in [1].

Some people will obviously object to this scheme because they won't
trust a moderator.  I think there are a number of people on the net
who have demonstrated that they know its workings and who we can agree
to trust, and the moderator should be such a person.

There would have to be a place for people who feel they were mistreated
by the moderator, I suppose; we could keep net.news.group for that.

Now, I can't be the moderator; I spend too much time with the net
as it is, and I can't afford to increment that at all.  So what I'm
calling for here is somebody to volunteer to moderate mod.news.group
(and perhaps change the name so that we don't have to create mod.news
too, though maybe we can think of a use for that).

The procedure for creating mod.news.group shall, I hope, be:

   [1] Many votes posted to net.news.group have demonstrated
       a need, and Lauren's posting points out another reason.

   [2] SOMEBODY VOLUNTEERS TO BE MODERATOR.

   [3] Yes or no votes for mod.news.group are MAILED to the
       volunteer.  New arguments for or against are posted
       to net.news.group.  Statements of the form "I refuse
       to accept that person as a fair moderator" are posted
       to net.news.group, but there won't be any of those.

   [4] The consensus is favorable and the group is created.

   [5] After some months, we evaluate things and maybe get
       rid of net.news.group.

Now, if nobody is going to volunteer, there's no need for discussion.
So, no direct followups to this message, please!

Mark Brader