Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: proposed 'standard' for creating new groups
Message-ID: <2264@phri.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 10:01:12 EST
Article-I.D.: phri.2264
Posted: Tue Mar  4 10:01:12 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 05:56:27 EST
References: <1073@burl.UUCP> <886@vortex.UUCP>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 21

In article <886@vortex.UUCP> lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) writes:
>
>1) Voting on Usenet is flawed.  If nothing else, we should be counting
>   ONE VOTE PER SITE, not one vote per person. [...] The point is that it
>   should be necessary for a SIGNIFICANT fraction of the TOTAL network to
>   be interested in a topic before newgroup creation is even considered.

	If you demand that you get a quorum, nothing will ever get done.  A
quick count of the votes in my "delete net.general" campaign (results to be
announced any day now) shows only about 150 people voting.  This is what,
maybe a couple percent of the people on the net?  Even if you defined
"significant" as 10% of the users, I doubt you could get that many to vote.

	Why should a single-user site have as big a vote as a site with 100
users?  This is a non-issue anyway.  Until you can get lots more people to
vote, it works out about the same either way.  Most sites don't vote, and
most sites that do vote only have one person voting.
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016