Xref: utzoo news.groups:8848 news.admin:5553
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik
From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL Guidelines (2nd try)
Summary: Some comments
Message-ID: <1226@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 89 13:12:33 GMT
References: <2961@ncar.ucar.edu>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 31

In article <2961@ncar.ucar.edu>, woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
> 
>       GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION (2nd draft)
> 
> REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP CREATION:

			......................

> The Discussion

> 3) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated
>    or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator will be) must be agreed
>    upon during the discussion period, which may last up to 30 days if needed.

Why should the discussion be limited to 30 days?  After the 14-day period, the
proposer may call for the vote, but if serious discussion is ongoing, and the
creation of the group is not urgent, why close it?

> The Vote

I believe that there should be an official vote-counting procedure not run
by the proposer.  This should be done in such a way as to minimize mail
problems.  Considering how much bounced mail I have had, and how many
messages which fell into the bit bucket, and the various degrees of 
connectivity of the possible proposers' sites, the sysadms should look
into this problem.  Also, the vote counter is supposed to be unbiased
in every other election procedure I have seen.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)