Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cabal
Keywords: newgroup, vote, control
Message-ID: <2234@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 89 22:42:35 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <63@norsat.UUCP> <288@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <3031@looking.UUCP> <290@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <3230@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 14

In article <3230@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes:
>I backed a proposal for a new "cabal" of administrators, made up of all
>administrators who care to be a part of it, with the only requirement being
>that you are an admin. 

  I should point out that this has already been tried. It was called
"the backbone cabal". When it grew to over 100 people, it became a failure
because the more people, the more flames and the harder it is to even
determine what the consensus is. Please let's not repeat a previous
mistake. A cabal-type group cannot succeed unless membership is severely
limited. If we can't find a way to select a membership that most of the net
is willing to trust, then the idea is hopeless.

--Greg