🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <93Jan06.163735.33205@acs.ucalgary.ca>, kozlowsk@acs.ucalgary.ca (Don M. Kozlowski) writes:

|> 
|> My problem with this proposed criteria is that I found it much
|> easier to understand the impact of both these votes *because*
|> all the affected groups were on a single ballot. The only thing
|> wrong with the music makers vote was one malcontent. 
|> 

I disagree.  The controversy about the music makers vote
was heated up as a result of the fact that one individual
refused to abide by the vote and tried to have the newsgroup
creation guidelines not only changed, but applied retroactively.

Because of all the brouhaha over that, what was lost
in the noise is that there was nevertheless something
wrong with the music makers vote:  the CFV was misleadingly
labelled.  The guidelines don't require votes to
be labelled any special way --- the CFV could have
been labelled the 'comp.unix reorg' without violating any
rule.  From the point of view of someone who only knew
about a group called rec.music.synth, it looked like
a call to reorganize some other music hierarchy.
My proposal is designed to address only the problem
about labelling.  

As to your first sentence, nothing in my proposal would
have prevented the ballots from having a rationale explaining
that if the alt.guitar renaming and the rec.music.synth
renaming took effect, there would be one consolidated
rec.music.makers group.  In fact, most ballots include
a preamble containing such a rationale.

|> Among all the complaints posted over and over again, I didn't
|> see anything that I felt was a problem. If someone doesn't
|> understand the significance of a vote, then I really don't care
|> what their opinion is. This is not a democracy. If they don't
|> understand how things work they can ask, or read the
|> documentation. I only wish there was some way to force people to
|> pass a quiz on usenet knowledge before being allowed to post.

I disagree with the entire basis for your argument.

Of course ignorance of the rules is never an excuse,
and of course people should know the rules.

But if "the way things work" is confusing and requires
extra work on the part of the user, then "the way things
work" ought to be changed.  This is true whether we
are talking about an automobile, a piece of software,
or the Usenet voting procedures.

Just for the record, the documentation which says one should read any CFV
regardless of its subject line was written AFTER the vote.

And the requirement that one should read any CFV regardless
of its subject line, while it may be today "the way things work",
is not from Sinai, and if it's a potential stumbling block,
should be changed.  Why keep even a documented misfeature
around using the excuse "well they should know how to
use the system or else they shouldn't be here"?  And you
haven't really made a good case that it's not a misfeature
to allow CFVs for renaming one group to be labelled with
the name of a completely different group.

Usenet isn't meant to be an obstacle course.
-- 
Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598