Xref: utzoo news.groups:18116 news.admin:8383 comp.groupware:108
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,comp.groupware
Subject: Re: CfD2: Interest Group Surveys (was: STV new group proposal in 25 lines)
Keywords: single transferrable votes STV newsgroup creation interest group
Message-ID: <100933@looking.on.ca>
Date: 23 Feb 90 01:35:13 GMT
References: <1990Feb22.191231.6560@diku.dk>
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 22
Class: rebuttal



The primary goals in selecting names in a namespace are consistency and
utility.  Popularity of a name probably isn't even on the list of goals, but
if it is, then it's way down.

Voting for names, or surveying opinion on names doesn't make any sense.
It ignores the primary goals and makes a lesser one the only criterion.

There is a mistaken effort here.  The current situation also does not
help with the goals of consistency and utility because it does not define
any method for deciding a name.   This is not good, some people have pointed
out, and they're right.  But it is better than "officially adopting" something
we know isn't a great answer.   In this case, any answer is *not* better than
no answer, because once you put something in these silly guidelines, it
stays, and all sorts of control freaks and net.police run around busily
pointing ot any technical violation they can find.

The correlation between a good name and the most popular name is marginal,
if it exists at all.  Why carve it in stone as a tool for naming groups?
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473