Xref: utzoo news.groups:18157 news.admin:8388
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sco!davidbe
From: davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: CfD2: Interest Group Surveys (was: STV new group proposal in 25 lines)
Message-ID: <2677@scorn.sco.COM>
Date: 23 Feb 90 21:45:20 GMT
References: <1990Feb22.191231.6560@diku.dk>
Sender: news@sco.COM
Reply-To: dave@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat)
Organization: The Scofflaw Cheats Outrageously
Lines: 28


She said that he said that she said that stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) said:
-
-3. Current Guidelines. (Compared to option  2, the current Guidelines do not
-support majority rule, a "no group" vote is counted twice [this is true in the
-Yes - No > 100 requirement, and in the 2/3 Yes votes requirement]. Compared to
-option 1, current rules permit a new group proposal to be defeated no matter how
-many people vote in favor of its creation. The earlier rational for these very
-strict requirements, that they would force a group champion to put forward only
-an acceptable name, is eliminated by STV voting, since it allows the
-respondents, not the group champion, to select the name for the new group.)

Actually, the whole idea behind the rules in the current guidelines (rules
in guidelines?  yeah, well...) historically had almost nothing to do with 
name.  There were two things hoped to be accomplished:  1)  Since any group 
can be voted down, it will cut out stupid newsgroup proposals.  2)  There 
must be something fundamentally wrong with a newsgroup proposal that can't 
muster 100 more yes than no votes.  Or, nowadays, a 2/3rds majority.

Naming of newsgroups has only recently (well, as recent as *.aquaria.*)
been the controversial issue.  Does *anybody* remember when newgroup
battles were fought of group content?  (That's a rhetorical question;
please don't answer it.)

-- 
       David Bedno aka dave@sco.COM: Speaking from but not for SCO.
    
	   Human beings will kill anything that laughs at them.