🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <EMCGUIRE.92Dec17094511@fuller.intellection.com>, emcguire@intellection.com (Ed McGuire) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec15.200011.18509@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
|> 
|>    Multiple changes should only be placed on a single ballot if no
|>    more than a single existing group or hierarchy of groups is
|>    directly affected by the change.  A group is directly affected by
|>    the change if a successful "yes" vote would change the name or the
|>    charter of that group.
|> 
|>    The RFDs and CFVs for name changes and reorganizations should
|>    be clearly labelled in the Subject line with the acronym RFD
|>    or CFD and the name of the newsgroup or newsgroup hierarchy
|>    which would be directly affected by the proposed change.
|> 
|> This second paragraph is fine.  However, multiple ballots created by
|> the first paragraph would needlessly complicate multiple hierarchy
|> renames, especially in the case where some renames are only meaningful
|> when others are successful.  I would suggest duplicate posts of the
|> same ballot with different subject lines in each affected hierarchy.
|> This solves the problem and allows for clear Subject: lines.
|> 

You've pointed out that my proposal bundles two suggestions:
(1) clearer mandates for subject lines on ballots; (2) restricting
the circumstances under which separate votes may be combined onto
a single ballot.  You seem to agree with (1) but disagree with (2).

Can you clarify what you think the "needless complications" will
be?  With automated software doing the actual vote tallying,
why is it so terrible if instead of a six-vote ballot, circumstances
required you to have two three-vote ballots?

|>    As a reader of news, you should be alert to RFD or CFV
|>    messages which mention newsgroups or newsgroup hierarchies
|>    which you read.  If the reorganization votes pass, these
|>    groups may get new names.   There will be a transition period
|>    when some articles will appear in the old newsgroup and others
|>    in the new newsgroup, since some site administrators will not
|>    merge or alias the old and new newsgroups. 
|> 
|> This is a good suggestion, but readers depend purely on the actual
|> ballot for instructions.  If they read a document on how to
|> participate in voting, fine; but as an addition to the guidelines as
|> you suggest, this will be an ineffective warning.  However, most of
|> the paragraph legitimately belongs in the ballot document.  What about
|> including a sample ballot as an appendix to the guidelines with this
|> text included?

The above (indented) paragraph was my proposal for inclusion
into the "guidelines for voters" (the not-yet-official document whose draft
was posted by John Stanley).  I agree this could be put into
the ballot, but the purpose of also putting it into the
"guidelines for voters" was to explain to new users why it
was important for them to read a CFV and alert them to the
consequences of ignoring the CFV.  There's no point in putting
something onto a ballot until you've first explained to the
new users why they should read ballots.

All of my proposals are based on the premise that readers
have a limited time to read articles, and that by default
they will ignore articles unless there is a compelling
reason to read them.  As Usenet gets bigger, but the
number of hours in the working day doesn't, this is going
to have to become true eventually.

-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598