Xref: utzoo news.groups:18552 comp.sys.mac:50223 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!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: <39344@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 9 Mar 90 14:55:25 GMT References: <1990Mar7.195114.1077@diku.dk> <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> Organization: Fictional Reality: where your dreams can come true Lines: 89 peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >There's one major difference. The very first thing Chuq did was run a poll >on whether or not this was OK in this particular case. The result of this >poll was overwhelmingly positive (like over a hundred to less than twenty). The current result, including the negative comments I've seen on the net (there were, I think, three: David, Tim and someone else) is about 175 yes, 10 no. Neither Tim nor David brought this up during the discussion of whether the form of the call for votes was appropriate (or if they did, it never arrived here at apple) and neither formally voted on the procedure when the vote was open for discussion and voting. It doesn't seem to be logical to consider that ten negative votes outweighs 175 positive votes, especially when three of those negative votes were never sent by mail and are being counted even though the voting has long since been closed. And, as I have mentioned on multiple occasions, when the formal call for vote comes out on Monday, people will have a chance to either vote 'no' on the parts of the proposal they don't like, or vote 'no' on every one of the ballot proposals if they feel strongly about it. USENET likes to consider itself a democracy where everyone gets a vote and has a say in how things are done. I think this reorg touches the heart of that wish: guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. In *every* place where I've deviated from the guidelines, I've asked the net for permission. In *every* place it's been done openly and the net has had a chance to say yes or no. When the net has disagreed with me, I've listened and modified the proposal. I've kept people as involved as I possibly could. When there was any question of propriety, I've asked, and I've followed what the net told me. If that's not the essence of USENET, I don't know what is. And now two or three people feel their will is more important than the couple of hundred who are enthusiastically for this proposal? I don't see that as reasonable, which is why I'm not delaying the vote or modifying the proposal. Besides, there is *still* one more vote coming. If people really don't like this proposal, they can still vote it down. All of this previous discussion and debate and surveys and voting were preliminaries designed to build a ballot. Now USENET can either vote the items on the ballot up or down. My argument is simple: let the people decide. If they think David or Tim are right, they'll vote the ballot down. If they think David or Tim are wrong, they'll vote in the parts of the ballot they think should be implemented. It's not up to me, or to Tim or to David to subvert that process. >The comp.groupware.f was sprung without any discussion. And there was no >way to vote for or against each group individually. The other major difference between this reorg and comp.groupware, and one that is just as important: comp.groupware was being created from scratch and there was no justified need for two groups. Comp.sys.mac is an existing, large and vibrant hierarchy of its own that needed some rehabilitation. There's no argument that an excess of volume exists already and that creating a single group simple wouldn't have been enough -- we would have been back with Yet Another C.S.M proposal in two or three months, and with the growth we've seen there, within a year or so there would simply be a permanent c.s.m dicussion/voting proposal floating around. The whole purpose of this was to try to avoid getting into a situation where it was broken to the point it couldn't be fixed. The point is this: the comp.groupware.f hassle was a situation were the guidelines were to a good degree ignored or misinterpreted. I don't think it was handled as cleanly as it could have been -- the proposal should have been cleaned up before it went to the call for votes, rather than after the fact like it was. I wasn't involved in that setup until the last minute, however. There really is no real similarity except in the mind of David, who still seems to be upset that he didn't get his way while I seem to be getting mine. The reason the situations are different, however, is that I've been very careful to define 'my way' as being what the net wants, and I did that by asking permission every time I did something, and, ultimately giving the net the final say on every issue independently rather than lumping multiple decisions into a single vote. The net can STILL say yes or no on any item. If I was really trying to force my agenda through, I would have simply handed out a ballot and told people to vote 'yes' or 'no' -- which, frankly, would have been a LOT less work on my part than this proposal has been. chuq (if I had, it probably would have failed, too. One thing I've learned about the net: they like to be involved. Throw something in the nets collective face, and the net is likely to stomp on it. Keep them involved, and they'll happily work WITH you). -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] All spirits are enslaved which serve things evil -- Shelley