Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!rutgers!njin!princeton!jonlab!jon
From: jon@jonlab.UUCP (Jon H. LaBadie)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Cabal
Summary: it is workable as a representative anarchy
Message-ID: <771@jonlab.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 89 04:05:33 GMT
References: <3010@looking.UUCP> <63@norsat.UUCP> <288@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Organization: 4455 Province Line Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540
Lines: 31

In article <14681@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>, jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> 
> I'm all for _some_ collection of guidelines and Brad's seem workable,
> with a few changes such as the number of members.  As others have
> tried to point out [ and Karl tries to here, sort of I suppose ],
> five is not large enough of a group.
> 
> Allowing any and all comers to vote is also wrong, IMHO.  The leafs
> outnumber the rest of us by large margins.  Letting the site admins
> of bazillions of leafs dictate USENET policy will be no better than
> better than the current situation.
> 
We could establish the 5 member board as a representative anarchy.
Select the delegate system admins using a logrithmic apportionment
based on readership.  For example, the 5 members might be chosen,
1 each from the group of sys admins who administer sites of

	 0 -   3 readers
	 4 -  10 readers
	11 -  30 readers
	30 - 100 readers
	   > 100 readers

What could be fairer than that?

BTW  who gets to maintain the list of sys admin's from which the
     board is randomly chosen?  Can I volunter ;-)
-- 
Jon LaBadie
{att, princeton, bcr}!jonlab!jon
{att, attmail, bcr}!auxnj!jon