Xref: utzoo news.groups:8839 news.admin:5545
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!gatech!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: The Guidelines and 100 Votes
Message-ID: <2960@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 89 00:00:52 GMT
Reply-To: woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 23


  The most controversial issue in all of this seems to be the 100 vote rule.
Most people who commented on it felt that it should be changed. I agree, but
I didn't include any changes to it in the guidelines, because my intention
was to try and formalize current practice rather than change it. I hope
that we CAN discuss the possibility of changes.

  I personally favor the proposal that required both a 100 vote margin
and a 2/3 majority for a creation vote to pass. One famous (but unnamed)
net person even went so far as to say "100 votes is a joke. I could get
100 votes on ANYTHING", and Bob Webber proved that to us shortly after
we started voting on things by getting the required 100 votes for 
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac which was never intended as a serious new
group proposal.  (Now those of you new to this mess understand the
recent April Fool's joke)
  I think we DO want to continue to create new groups, but we also need
to be very careful about choosing the right name for a group (to make it
easier to find the groups you want to read/post in) and, at least until
we come up with a reasonable method for DELETING groups, limit new group
creations to those that are really needed, or the namespace will become
unmanageable.

--Greg