Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!snowmass.scd.ucar.edu!woods From: woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: mercy rule Message-ID: <6358@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 19 Feb 90 21:31:05 GMT References: Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Lines: 20 In article emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) writes: >New groups with widespread interest and little >controversy should be created quickly. First, why? Why is a new group proposal so critical that it can't wait a few weeks? Would the net REALLY have fallen apart if we had had to carry on the Next discussions in comp.misc for a couple of weeks while a vote was held? Second, unless a vote is held, how do you determine that there is "widespread interest"? A few vocal proponents in news.groups does not guarantee widespread interest. >If there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the >group will be created with no substantial opposition, then the >vote results can be sent in and the group created "early". I think this puts way too much power in the hands of the vote-taker. Sure., there are some lopsided results, but I really don't see why group proposals have to be created in such a hurry. It just isn't that critical. --Greg