Xref: utzoo news.admin:8010 news.groups:15796 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!dkuug!freja!stodol From: stodol@freja.diku.dk (David Stodolsky) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups Subject: Re: STV new group proposal in 25 lines Keywords: stv votes group creation interest surveys Message-ID: <5059@freja.diku.dk> Date: 17 Dec 89 22:33:04 GMT Organization: DIKU, U of Copenhagen, DK Lines: 60 brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes in Message-ID: <62274@looking.on.ca>: >At least from the postings, it seems that many people think that voting >on group names is good solution, and that this does not need to be >explained. Voting is the worst solution, except for having no way to reach a fair decision. Voting rules should encourage people to come to a consensus decision, in which all important facts and points of view are satisfied. However, reaching a consensus decision on Usenet is nearly impossible for two reasons. With a very large number of participants, some of who act in an irresponsible manner, a total consensus is never reached. Second, if people agree with a point they typically don't post, "I agree". Let's face it, after the first half dozen, this gets to be boring reading. So, given the current communication structure on Usenet, that does little to discourage irresponsible behavior and has no inherent "back channel" or review message capabilities, a vote is normally necessary to reach a decision, even if a consensus exits. This second reason is why I ran the groupware vote STV. A number of people posted or mailed the opinion that the name should be comp.groupware not sci.groupware. Then, I presented my arguments as to why it should be sci.groupware and there was no rejoinder, actually hardly any comment at all. So, either the critics were convinced or they did not read my arguments, couldn't be bothered to respond, their mail/posts were lost, etc. Well, the vote showed that the critics were not convinced (at least not most of them). An ideal voting system should work like an ideal court system. If you know what the decision is going to be, why waste the time to go through a complex and resource consuming procedure. The key point is that the system is fair, so you can not accomplish anything by using it that can not be accomplished by a clear presentation and understanding of the facts. Greg Wood believes that the current patch to the Guidelines (i. e., the 2/3 rule) will by its threat potential, force group champions to accept a proper name. This will not work for two reasons. First, due to the lack of appropriate feedback, which is typically combined with inexperience, group champions often don't know what a proper name is. And they often don't know various persons on the net well enough to distinguish between people trying to help them, and those who just are opposed to the group or get their kicks by taunting any "new kid on the block". Second, a contest, which is even clearer when there is a 2/3 rule, is just what will encourage certain people to try and "beat the system". That is, show that they can WIN, regardless of what the contest is about. This kind of environment also generates vote fraud and forgeries. Finally, people leave Usenet, start their own hierarchies, or take other measures avoid stupid stuff. There is enough recent experience on the net to illustrate this. If single transferrable voting procedures are available, it will be clearer that forcing a decision to a vote is just a waste of time. This, hopefully, will encourage less people to try to delay or defeat an obvious conclusion. A higher level of consensus is certainly needed on Usenet at this time. -- David S. Stodolsky, PhD Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:stodol@diku.dk> Department of Psychology Internet: Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88 Voice + 45 31 58 48 86 DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11