Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Summary: One proposed new procedure
Message-ID: <3011@looking.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 89 06:22:56 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Looking Glass Software, Waterloo Ont.
Lines: 80

In the previous article, I described how I feel the current system misses
the whole mark, and how I think we need a new one.  Here's one.  It's
just a proposal.

Remember, what we want is a way for sysadmins to decide what groups to
carry.  That's the ultimate decision making process of usenet, and any
guidelines must be based on that.

I propose the creation of the 'Usenet Newsgroup List Advisory Board' (UNLAB).
Unlab would consist of 5 people drawn from a pool.  Each month, the oldest
member of the board (the chair) would rotate off and a new person
would rotate on.  Nobody would control the board or be able to stay on
it for long.

The board will give advice on what groups should be created and deleted.
It's decisions would be by a vote of the 5, majority wins.  The board would
be restricted to decisions on newsgroup creation/deletion and the apointment
of new moderators for new groups or groups where the moderator has abdicated
without a successor.  In fact, I would advise that the members of UNLAB
be prohibited from expressing an opinion on the net on questions of
"how the net should be run" that have a boardmember's name attached.
(Instead, they could still post anonymous opinions, and of course, send
mail.)

Now I see two ways for UNLAB to give its advice on changes to the
newsgroup list.

	1) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB.  If they are unanimous,
	the group is created, by them, after a short discussion.

	If they are not unanimous, UNLAB holds a survey.  The question,
	written by the UNLAB chair, is posted to "news.groups," a MODERATED
	group.   Survey replies go to an automatic counting program
	run by UNLAB on an central machine.  The survey lasts as long as
	UNLAB wants, I would suggest 14 days is plenty.  It's just a
	survey.

	UNLAB examines the survey results as they see fit.  No hard and
	fast rules, although general guidelines like the ones we have
	now might guide their decisions.   They vote.  Majority decides.

or
	2) Somebody suggests a group to UNLAB.  Unless they are unanimously
	AGAINST it, it gets created.  (If they are unanimously against,
	a survey might be taken if the applicant appeals.)

	The groups is create on a trial basis.  A set of randomly selected
	arbitron running sites will send arbitron reports to UNLAB officials.
	If the readership reaches suitable levels (decided by UNLAB, but
	the same for all groups) within 4-6 months, the group stays.
	Otherwise the axe falls.  Remember, no problem deleting groups as
	UNLAB can do that easily.  My suggestion of a criterion for
	readership is that the group have 1 reader per long distance link
	in the subnet in which it exists.  Anything less is more efficient
	with a mailing list.

Deletion:
	If Unlab is unanimous for deletion on an established group for 5
	months, it's history.  (This is a complete rotation of the UNLAB
	membership.)

Membership:
	UNLAB membership would be open to sysadmins with 3 or more years
	of usenet experience.  Each new member would be drawn from a
	pool of volunteers.  The drawing would be random, and done by
	a non-member who has signed an oath to execute the choices
	randomly.  (Or pseudo randomly, since it would be done by
	software.)


Now I personally, as a sysadmin, would trust this more than the
random, self-selected, biased noisy polls we see now.  What about you?
Think of it.  No noise, no arguments, no sticky procedure.

I will write up a formal set of rules for the board later if people
like this idea.  Note that when I say 'formal set of rules,' I refer
to the rules for UNLAB membership.  The actual decision process must
remain flexible.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473