Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping
Message-ID: <69713@looking.on.ca>
Date: 31 Dec 89 17:57:18 GMT
References: <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <37521@apple.Apple.COM>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 35
Class: rebuttal

In article <37521@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>So no, we're not changing the guidelines. And, no, you can't just vote on a
>group without a discussion -- the intent of the guidelines are clear. If

I am not so sure of this.  The intent of the guidlines, as I see it, is

	"To provide an objective demonstration that it would be a good
	idea to create this group, by default, over the entire net."

Does anybody disagree?

In many cases, I doubt the discussion phase much affects how people feel
about the group itself.  But discussion phases have indeed changed the
results of surveys, sometimes considerably.

	a) They have increased the number of people who participate, by
	   drawing attention to the proposal through volume, volume, volume.

	b) They have caused people to respond based on personality and nits
	   in proposals rather than on the group itself.

	c) They have caused people to argue and respond based on the group
	   name.

The key word here (not said well in the guidelines) is *demonstration*.  That's
what this whole thing is about.  You have to show objective evidence that
your group is a good idea.

I would say that the validity of the demonstration is probably not improved
a great deal through the discussion phase, and often is diminished by it.

So I am all for creation of groups without discussion, and I think it follows
the intent of the guidelines just fine.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473