Xref: utzoo news.groups:8841 news.admin:5548
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bee
From: bee@cs.purdue.EDU (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Changes to proposed guidelines
Message-ID: <6510@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 89 01:32:38 GMT
References: <2959@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: bee@cs.purdue.edu (Zaphod Beeblebrox)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 38

Said woods@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods): 
(in article <2959@ncar.ucar.edu>)
|
| [ misc. about revised guidelines ]
|
|--Greg

I'm somewhat suspicious about this.  It seems that the newgroup
procedure is slowly but surely getting more complicated all the time.
Putting in clarifications all over the place for everything will only
necessitate clarifications of the clarifications, ad infinitum, ad
nauseum.  For example, it's generally a net.consensus that once a
subject has been brought up and voted down, it should not reappear for
a while.  So now we have the add-on that a subject should not be
discussed for 6 months after an unsuccessful vote.  Now this opens up
a whole new can of worms.  When exactly does this 6-month period
begin?  Do we count from the start of the discussion, start of the
vote, end of the vote, end of the discussion following the vote, etc.?
And do we flame somebody that's only been on the net for 4 months that
brings the subject up again?  Carry this to its logical conclusion,
and we end up with something that looks like the American legal
system.  IMHO, the only place where we need a solid time boundary is
in the duration of the voting period.  If someone wants to run a vote
on some proposed new group that failed 2 months before, I've got no
problem with that.  After all, it's their time that they're using to
collect votes, not mine.  If discussion dies off enough after a week
that a call for votes can be made on the 10th day after a subject is
brought up, that's OK by me too.  Making too many rules (or
"guidelines", if you insist) just gets in the way.

(No flames intended in the above, BTW.)

                                          B.E.E.
-- 
Zaphod Beeblebrox  |  Now why is it, friends, when you have all you can bear,
  alias B.E.E.     |  You can always count on some clown being there,
bee@cs.purdue.edu  |  With exactly the right words to say to make
..!purdue!bee      |     things even worse?!?  -- Ray Stevens