Xref: utzoo news.groups:8522 news.admin:5305 Checksum: 10135 Lines: 128 Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Date: Tue, 28-Mar-89 01:07:23 EST Message-ID: <1989Mar28.010723.7298@sq.com> Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin Subject: Re: Proposed OFFICIAL Newsgroup Creation/Deletion Guidelines Summary: For any change, 2/3 vote with minimum number on winning side References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <37740@bbn.COM> <27806@apple.Apple.COM> Reply-To: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto I comment on three aspects of the guideline proposals. First: > o A group creation vote succeeds if 67% of the vote is for creation. > o A group deletion vote succeeds if 67% of the vote is for deletion. > o Any vote with less than 150 total votes will be considered failed for > lack of interest. I would support the above proposal, for much the same reasons as those advanced previously. However, I would like it even better if it read as follows: o A group creation vote succeeds if 2/3 of the vote is for creation. o A group deletion vote succeeds if 2/3 of the vote is for deletion. o Any vote where neither side reaches 150 votes will be considered failed for lack of interest. The change from 67% to 2/3 is simply a preference for small numbers; 2/3 is a common requirement for "important votes" in various bodies, but I don't think I've ever heard of 67% being used. The change in the wording of the rule I list third is because in the first version a vote of 130-0 is a loss but 130-50 is a win, and it doesn't seem fair to me that voting against a proposal can help it win. If the first version was adopted, people who thought a proposal was silly might be afraid to vote against it for fear of triggering this effect. (No matter how silly a proposal there is always SOMEONE who will vote for it!) The exact number 100 or 150 is not important, but I can't see any other reasonable way of establishing a threshold. I propose that 150 be adopted for now, but subject to annual review. Indeed, the entire guidelines should be subject to annual review. (The original proposal also had a rule about spoiled ballots and auditing; I have no comment on this, either way, and excluded it from this article for brevity. I do agree with most of the proposals I've seen for ensuring that individual votes come from real individuals.) Second: Back when voting was first adopted, there was no rule that a discussion period had to precede the 30-day vote period. So discussion and voting used to be held simultaneously. I think this was the principal reason that the period is as *long* as 30 days. And it is because the period is so long that "repeated calls for votes" are necessary, or at least, that some people think they are necessary. But how do people vote in, say, directors' meetings? There is a discussion period, and then someone decides that enough time has passed, and then there is a call for a vote and the result is tallied at once. It may not be fair to do exactly this on the net, because of net-people taking vacations, but I think we should move more in that direction, and should also try to reduce the total time required. I propose that there should be three phases. o First, 2 weeks or more of discussion, by the end of which time the time the question(s) to be voted on should be precisely established. o Second, 2 weeks in which discussion may continue and votes will also be accepted. During this time the proposer would be allowed, perhaps after seeing the early voting, to withdraw the proposal and perhaps start over at the first step with a modified one. Minor revisions (e.g. name changes expected to be non-controversial) would also be allowed during this period. o Third, 1 week during which votes would be accepted and voters would be allowed to change their original votes now that the entire discussion period is over. People who take vacations of more than 3 weeks are out of luck, but then, who has time to catch up on *any* group after *any* vacation these days? And if the proposal is good it would probably pass even if a small number of people didn't get to vote for it. Third, note that in my second set of proposals above I said "question(s)". While the original proposed new guidelines demanded that a vote should be on yes-or-no questions only, I see no reason to demand this, and reasons not to demand it. The requirement should only be that the questions are well-defined and are not phrased on such a way as to "split the vote" on the main question which should always be "create/delete or not". For example, this should be okay: Choose one: [ ] Do Not Create [ ] Create If you chose Create, also choose a name: [ ] No opinion [ ] comp.text.sq [ ] comp.text.sq.sqtroff [ ] comp.text.sqtroff [ ] comp.text.sqps [ ] Other: _________________ "Australian Rules" or similar preference voting should also be okay, if the proposer is willing to tabulate it! This would be appropriate for those votes where there is controversy over naming or over how many groups to create. For example: Rank the following in preference order, 1 = most preferred: [ ] Do Not Create [ ] Create comp.text.sq Only [ ] Create comp.text.sqps Only [ ] Create comp.text.sqtroff Only [ ] Create comp.text.sq.sqtroff Only [ ] Create Both comp.text.sq and comp.text.sq.sqtroff [ ] Create one group, other name: _______________ Either of these multi-way vote types should be permitted as long as: o There is consensus during the discussion period that the questions are fairly expressed, with all well-supported or well-conceived choices included; and vote-splitting is not being attempted. o The primary question is always Do Something or Do Nothing; 2/3 of the vote (or whatever guideline is finally chosen) is required to Do Something. This is required for *each* newsgroup proposed; in the last example, 2/3 of the votes would have to be for Create Both for that to pass. (The "product placement" in the examples was intended in a spirit of fun.) Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity; but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice. -- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"