Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!emv From: emv@math.lsa.umich.edu (Edward Vielmetti) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: mercy rule Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 90 21:54:18 GMT References: <6358@ncar.ucar.edu> Sender: news@math.lsa.umich.edu Followup-To: news.groups Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI. Lines: 48 In-reply-to: woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu's message of 19 Feb 90 21:31:05 GMT In article <6358@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: I write: >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? Greg, you weren't reading the NeXT discussions. They were all over the place -- in comp.misc, comp.sys.mac, comp.arch, four or five other groups. Despite the existence of a proper and well-formed .misc group, human nature took its course and people talked about the stuff wherever it pleased them. The net *did* fall apart, at least for the purpose of discussing that topic. 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. A few vocal anything in news.groups is almost a sure sign that the group has way too much controversy for its own good. In general the more heat the less light. Extended polemics about how a group should be named such and such is not a reliable indicator. What does serve to indicate that a new group would have immediate interest and quality discussion is the existence of that discussion already scattered among a number of groups. If a group could sustain itself simply by reposting selected articles out of ten or so existing groups then it has enough interest to make it worthwhile. Oh yes, then issue the formal call for votes & cross-post it into the other groups & see what you get. >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. And I think that your arbitrary voting rules put way too much power into your hands. What do you gain from delaying except delay ? --Greg