so-called "vote" to re-create comp.unix.wizards

Thu Oct 11 02:29:27 AEST 1990

jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) thinks:

| In article <27120776.717A at tct.uucp> chip at tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
| >Followers of the comp.unix.wizards/internals/esoterica debate
| >in news.groups will no doubt be entertained to find that John
| >F. Haugh II, who issued a newgroup on c.u.wizards without any
| >of the normal procedures, is now trying to run a "vote" on the
| >subject -- with the call for votes posted only to c.u.wizards.
| 
| First, the guidelines have been followed.  There has been discussion
| in comp.unix.internals for more than two weeks.  Second, others have
| suggested that comp.unix.wizards be recreated.  Third, the vote was
| announced in the appropriate and relevant newsgroups.  That is the
| gist of the guidelines.  That there be discussion, some concensus on
| action to be taken, and a call for votes.  According to those
| guidelines, this is a valid vote.

Huh?!?  What kind of guidelines are these?  If mean that *a* set of
guidelines has been followed, well, yeah, that's true.  But if you
mean that *the* Guidelines have been followed, which I'm sure you do
since you are proposing a new group and since there are specific
guidelines for that action, then you're wrong.

I hate to cite the Guidelines, but this posting cries for it ...

| This is not the first time some mention of this vote has been made
| in news.groups.  Complaints that the "CFV" was not made in news.groups
| are a red herring - surely by now everyone in news.groups knows I am
| holding a vote for comp.unix.wizards.  If they didn't know before your
| posting, they sure as hell do now.

"Surely"?  "Everyone"?!  How do you know that?  That's right -- you
*can't*.  That's why you post your Calls for {Discussion,Votes} to
news.announce.newgroups -- so that those who want to be part of the
pseudo-democracy here can.  Those like yourself who claim they don't
have the time to read n.a.n (but apparently *do* have the time to
fight for their favorite newsgroup back from the hands of that evil
Chip Salzenberg :-) forfeit their right to participate in the group
suggestion process.

| My personal opinion is that all of USENET should be moderated.  This
| is not a new or unique opinion.  The only problem with this is finding
| enough qualified moderators.

Ack!  If the whole thing were moderated, your supposed "call for
votes" might never appear ... did you ever think about that?  And who
would qualify the moderators?  Not you, I hope.  I prefer limited
moderation rather than global.

| So, I happen to think that a moderated comp.unix.wizards would stand
| a very good chance of being created, and given the generally high
| quality and signal-to-noise ratio of moderated groups that it would
| definitely be a group to read.  And yes, I would vote for a moderated
| comp.unix.wizards over an unmoderated comp.unix.wizards every time.

If there were no other changes to the comp.unix.* structure before
Chip's reorganization proposal, I would agree with you.  However,
there are plenty of other groups that handle the information contained
comp.unix.wizards.  And how much more effort is it to read c.u.shell,
c.u.internals, c.u.admin, c.u.programmer, and c.u.misc?  Two, maybe
three keystrokes per group?  A total of ten seconds out of your day?

Like I said, I hate to do it, but your posting leaves me no other
choice:

By posting the discussion to comp.unix.wizards only, you violated the
first rule.  That makes you 0 and 1 so far.

| 2) The name and charter of the proposed group and whether it will be moderated
|    or unmoderated (and if the former, who the moderator(s) will be) should be 
|    determined during the discussion period. If there is no general agreement
|    on these points among the proponents of a new group at the end of 30 days
|    of discussion, the discussion should be taken offline (into mail instead 
|    of news.groups) and the proponents should iron out the details among
|    themselves.  Once that is done, a new, more specific proposal may be made,
|    going back to step 1) above.

Is there general agreement on these points amongst the proponents?  So
far I've seen at least three different serious proposals for the
group.  I'll count this as another against you, making you 0 and 2.

| The Vote
| 
| 1) AFTER the discussion period, if it has been determined that a new group is
|    really desired, a name and charter are agreed upon, and it has been
|    determined whether the group will be moderated and if so who will
|    moderate it, a call for votes may be posted to news.announce.newgroups and
|    any other groups or mailing lists that the original call for discussion
|    might have been posted to. There should be minimal delay between the
|    end of the discussion period and the issuing of a call for votes.
|    The call for votes should include clear instructions for how to cast
|    a vote. It must be as clearly explained and as easy to do to cast a
|    vote for creation as against it, and vice versa.

Is the new group really desired?  Did you post the CFV to n.a.n as
well as other relevant groups?  Did it include clear instructions for
vote casting?  Do you want it moderated or don't you?  That sounds
like 4 against you so far, but you did keep the time between the
discussion period and the CFV minimal (which, BTW, gives new meaning
to the world "minimal", considering that your discussion period never
formally started or ended).  So I'll count you at 1 and 6 so far.

| 2) The voting period should last for at least 21 days and no more than 31
|    days, no matter what the preliminary results of the vote are. The exact
|    date that the voting period will end should be stated in the call for
|    votes.

No serious date was given by you for the end of the voting period.  1
and 7.

| 3) A couple of repeats of the call for votes may be posted during the vote, 
|    provided that they contain similar clear, unbiased instructions for
|    casting a vote as the original, and provided that it is really a repeat
|    of the call for votes on the SAME proposal (see #5 below).

You can't go changing the proposal from un- to moderated in the middle
of the vote (you've already called for votes, remember?)!  It's gotta
be the "SAME" proposal.  1 and 8.

| 4) ONLY votes MAILED to the vote-taker will count. Votes posted to the net
|    for any reason (including inability to get mail to the vote-taker) and 
|    proxy votes (such as having a mailing list maintainer claim a vote for 
|    each member of the list) may not be counted.

You have requested this in your CFV, so I'll give credit where credit
is due.  2 and 8.

| 5) Votes may not be transferred to other, similar proposals. A vote shall
|    count only for the EXACT proposal that it is a response to. In particular,
|    a vote for or against a newsgroup under one name shall NOT be counted as
|    a vote for or against a newsgroup with a different name or charter,
|    a different moderated/unmoderated status or (if moderated) a different
|    moderator or set of moderators.

My complaint here is essentially the same as under item (3) above, so
I won't count this again.  Still 2 and 8.

| 6) Votes MUST be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the
|    group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar
|    as proposed". The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to
|    be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote
|    for this group if..." should be considered comments only and not
|    counted as votes.

This you've done, I suppose.  Make it 3 and 8.

So far, it seems that you've followed about 27% of the guidelines so
far ... that's not what I would call deviation from the guidelines
under "extreme conditions" (see the full guidelines for the quote).

Face it -- the net voted to eliminate comp.unix.wizards.  Simple as
that.  Too bad for you if you don't like it.

Eric

PS: Speaking from, but in no way for, Encore.
--
       Eric Peterson <> epeterson at encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson
   Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208
Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.