🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.203619.15086@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>That's correct, but not complete. Let me present some calm points
>(for a change). I claim all of the following to be my position. My position
>is subject to change based on new data or arguments. 

...for now; at least you admit you're going to be slippery.

>1) As a direct result of the name change, r.m.s lost some good people. 

No. As a direct result of your flamage and insistence on carrying this
discussion in rec.music.synth, it lost some good people.

>2) As a direct result of the name change, r.m.s lost the ability to be
>distributed through at least one gateway.

No. As a direct result of the gateway admin's stubbornness and refusal to go
along with a change adopted by one of the networks he's gatewaying to, it lost
the ability to be distributed through at least one gateway.

>3) I found the vote to adhere to the letter of the guidelines but not the
>spirit of them. It has been admitted in this thread that the voter population
>was skewed unfairly against the constituents of r.m.s...however the skewing
>was not against the guidelines. 

No. The most that has been admitted in this thread is that the subject was
somewhat unclear. Only in the case of users who didn't read the articles
posted (all five of them) to rec.music.synth was there skewing. Further, if
someone who is following the discussion thinks that it would have a bad effect
on the group, it could well be argued that he has a duty to warn the group.
 
>1) The r.m.s issue should be revoted upon. (An RFD is sitting in Mr. 
>Lawrence's mailbox.)

No way in hell, as long as you hold to the form posted in your RFD.

>2) Blind adherence to an incomplete guidelines set is alienating many net 
>users. This issue needs to be addressed.

OK, fine...propose specific changes. Be forewarned, though, that in those
cases where the Guidelines were changed as a result of a particular vote, even
if the altered Guidelines would have resulted in the invalidation of that vote
had they been in effect during the vote, the vote has stood. See, for example,
sci.aquaria, which passed by 100 votes but only 60% or so; it was directly
responsible for the adoption of the 2/3 majority rule, but was still held to
be valid.

>3) Voting procedures should not assume that lack of responsiveness is due
>to chosen ignorance. There are many new net users. This issue needs to 
>be addressed. Revotes, in particular, need to be allowed. 

The problem here is that this leads to the case where someone who doesn't liek
the result of a vote immediately calls for a revote, and repeats that call as
many times as he can. This does nothing but create needless friction and
wastes bandwidth and time. It is for this reason that parliamentary procedure
does not allow for revisiting an issue during the same meeting in which it was
decided except in extraordinary cases, and only allows for modification of
actions taken in earlier meetings under more stringent requirements for
passage than the original vote had to meet. It is for this reason that I
believe that a 6-month delay after consideration of any newsgroup issue - not
just ones that failed - is a Good Idea.

I will only support revotes if 1) the number is strictly limited, 2) there are
specific grounds for calling one, and 3) there is a clear demonstration that
the revote produced both an increased turnout and a significantly larger
majority for the change than was for the original measure.

>4) The entire procedure of renaming and removing groups needs to be
>addressed so that the issue is made as clear as is humanly possible to
>the constituents of existing groups.

Within the constraints of limiting bandwidth used and limited Subject: line
length, I'll buy that. However, note that this cannot be applied
retroactively.

>Again, this position is subject to change. I don't pretend to be inflexible,
>but I will admit to stubborness.

Same here: I am stubborn about implementing the expressed wishes of the net.
The manner in which those wishes are implemented is subject to flexibility,
but the net has spoken, and I will not give in to demands to ignore it.

>As I've said above, yes. However, I realize that everyone here is burning out 
>on these flames, and there's a lot of people who'd just as soon see me drop 
>this entire issue. My compromise is to only answer the more rational posts 
>from here on in such as yours. Everyone else take this to email.

I hope this qualifies; I'd honestly like to see a rational response from you
to the issues I raised.

>I will continue to champion the issue of r.m.s. and I am working on changes 
>to the guidelines as we flame. I do not intend to drop this issue at all. 

If you have changes to the Guidelines, post them. Remember, though, that long
net.precedent is that those changes are not applied retroactively.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.