Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!zodiac!clash!dglo From: dglo@clash.ADS.COM (Dave Glowacki) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Cabal and news group creation etc. Keywords: newgroup, vote, control Message-ID: <7477@zodiac.UUCP> Date: 6 Apr 89 22:21:20 GMT References: <290@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <291@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <4873@xyzzy.UUCP> <1307@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> <52217@uunet.UU.NET> <1989Apr6.113431.27370@ateng.ateng.com> Sender: news@zodiac.UUCP Reply-To: dglo@ads.com (Dave Glowacki) Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 960-7300 Lines: 27 In article <1989Apr6.113431.27370@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to rick@uunet.UU.NET (Rick Adams): >>1) pick some people (at most 5). Any one of them can decide to immediately >> create a group. They can also immediately decide to reject a group. >>2) anyone not liking the above choice can vote to override their decision. >>3) should there be a conflict [...] immediately nullified and go to 2) > >As to the selection: I suggest that some trustworthy person (Rick? Henry? >Eric Raymond?) declare himself ineligible and use a pseudo-random selection >of five ("major"?) sites; the five admins of those sites form the Cabal. >Replacement to be handled the same way. Hmmm...I like the "5 people" idea, but people seem to be pushing for administrators from major sites. This allows for easier selection of responsible people, but it also biases the opinions of the board. It seems like the backbone cabal's objectives were to keep the net traffic down and the number of groups small. A selection like: a big university admin, a big commercial admin, a small site admin, a "reader's ombudsman", and would provide a wider sample of The Net Opinion. I'll admit that choosing the members of this group would be more difficult and the board would be open to objections of "You don't represent MY opinion", but I think the Net effect might be better. -- Dave Glowacki dglo@ads.com Advanced Decision Systems