Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!bunter!muller
From: muller@bunter.dg.com (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cabal
Keywords: newgroup, vote, control
Message-ID: <4912@xyzzy.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 89 14:50:02 GMT
References: <290@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <4873@xyzzy.UUCP> <28368@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: usenet@xyzzy.UUCP
Reply-To: muller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Woody Muller)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 16

>>Considering that some site administrators represent thousands, some represent
>>hundreds, some represent tens, and some represent a site of one user, How
>>do you come up with the conclusion that limiting USENET proceedings to
>>site administrators is "in principle sound and fair to all"?
>
>They (1) maintain the news system, and more importantly (2) pay the bills.
>The folks with the checkbooks are the people who should have the final say.

(1) They *already* maintain the news system.  If rec.sex or ...tcp-ip.eniac
    gets voted in, the site admins *already* have the power to refuse.
(2) While most site admins budget money on behalf of their companies for
    net expenses, one vote per site admin doesn't necessarily bring us any
    closer to an equitable distribution of power.  Some sites spend little,
    other sites spend a lot.  Site admins already have the final say.
--
                  "Standard disclaimers apply!"
      Woody Muller     919-248-5919(work)     919-544-6783(home)