Xref: utzoo news.groups:18508 comp.sys.mac:50120
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Do not reorganize comp.sys.mac.*
Keywords: multiple creation renaming crossposting
Message-ID: <39304@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 8 Mar 90 14:04:33 GMT
References: <1990Mar7.195114.1077@diku.dk>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Fictional Reality: where your dreams can come true
Lines: 41

stodol@diku.dk (David Stodolsky) writes:

I'm sending followups to this to news.groups, which is where this discussion
should be. comp.sys.mac should be for macintosh discussions only.

>This is not one of methods previously proposed or used for selection on Usenet.
>And there is no evidence that it does a good job or works fairly.

>There are no guidelines for creating more than one group at a time (this was
>pointed out to me strongly, see enclosed below), and none for renaming.

David evidently is coming in in the middle of all of this. The first thing
that was done in this proposal was run a binding survey on whether or not
the variances from the guidelines were acceptable to the net. That vote
passed overwhelmingly, aroung 175 yes to 5 no. I don't believe David was one
of the no's, for what it matters. So his arguments that the proposal doesn't
meet the guidelines is irrelevant -- the net has already accepted the
variances as being acceptable *in this case* (note: not a general change in
guidelines. A one time variance).

>It is
>very hard to predict the outcome of multiple changes. The most needed new group
>should be created. After a few months of heavy cross-posting the actual
>character of the new group, and thereby, the remainder of c.s.m, will become
>obvious. Then further changes can be considered.

It was done this was specifically to avoid spending the next two years
reorganizing something that's in serious trouble. I don't know about you,
but I have better things to do than hold constant votes and discussions.
Again, David's argument, based on the votes the net has done, is irrelevant.

If people feel the that the re-org is bad, they should argue about it *in
news.group only*, not here. C.s.m is bad enough already. And they should
make sure to vote no on the parts of the ballot they feel are inappropriate
when the voting period starts.

-- 

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>   chuq@apple.com   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

All spirits are enslaved which serve things evil -- Shelley