Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Where have No votes gotten us?
Message-ID: <3350@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 13:53:54 GMT
References: <371@odi.ODI.COM> <3400@looking.on.ca> <372@odi.ODI.COM> <4389@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 22

In article <4389@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
>
>> 
>> If even one ill-advised newsgroup is not created because enough people 
>> vote No, then a good thing has been done.
>
>If even one well-advised newsgroup is not created because too many
>people vote No, then a bad thing has been done.

   This is PRECISELY the point! Neither Jeff nor I nor any other one person
is entitled to define what is an "ill-advised" vs. "well-advised" newsgroup!
That is why we have votes, and it is also why we need to have NO votes as
well. It's the only semi-fair way to define what is "ill-advised". It has been
pointed out numerous times that most proposals generate few NO votes. To me,
this means that most proposals are not "ill-advised". Many "ill-advised"
proposals never actually come to a vote, because it becomes obvious during
the discussion (e.g., rec.pipes). But some people insist on pushing a proposal
that many think is "ill-advised". I don't think that pure bullheadedness
on the part of a small minority should be enough to get an ill-advised group
created. The only way to prevent that from happening is to allow NO votes.

--Greg