Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Scrap the current NG creation procedure, invent a new one
Message-ID: <3658@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 3 Apr 89 13:28:52 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <445@flatline.UUCP> <3199@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <3130@alembic.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 31

In article <3130@alembic.UUCP>, csu@alembic.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
> In article <3649@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >There is no "Franchise" on the net.

> "disenfranchise[disfranchise], v.t., 1. to deprive of the rights of
> citizenship, as of the right to vote or hold office. 2. to deprive of
> a privilege, right, or power." -- Webster's New World Dictionary, Coll. Ed.

> Now that you know what it means, may we proceed?

1. The net is not a country, and we are not citizens.
2. Group creation is a privilege already restricted to site admins.
   The right to create groups is restricted to major site admins.
   The power to create groups is already restricted to site admins.

What universal franchise do the readers and contributors of the net have
that would be violated by restricting voting privileges to site admins?

The right to flame about it in news.groups? But they'd still have that.
The right to vote? But many readers don't have that anyway. Look at all the
complaints about votes not getting through. At least site admins would have
a better chance of knowing how to get the vote recorded.

I'm not in favor of this proposal, at least not as a replacement for voting,
but I think the emotional stance that there is some inalienable right to
vote for groups is just plain wrong.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.