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

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <epeterso.655576167 at houligan> epeterson at encore.com (Eric Peterson) writes:
>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.

you will notice that in virtually all of the part of the guidelines
you quoted the word "should" was present.  not "must", but rather
"should", or "may", or "might".  these guidelines are meant to 
serve as guidelines - a "guideline" is an overview or outline of
expected behavior.  these are not rules cast in stone.

also, comp.unix.wizards is not a "new" group - it is an "old"
group.  the guidelines don't even begin to address issues such
as re-creating a group which was freshly removed.

>| 1) A call for discussion on creation of a new newsgroup should be posted
                                                           ^^^^^^

see?  there's that evil "should" word.  this runs through and through
the entire collection of guidelines.

the guidelines are this way on purpose - so that the vote taker
can tailor the process to their own particular needs, the nature
of the group, and so on.  when i run votes i prefer to keep the
total number of votes =low=.  the best way to do that in the
past has been to limit the discussion to only the relevant groups,
and not to drag it through the process called "news.groups".  i
do this because i prefer to send out personal replies when i
think the person has a particularly interesting or worthwhile
opinion which i want to explore further.  ask chip if he responded
to 80+% of the voters in his call with more than a mass acknowlegement.

>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.

my proposal is simply to follow the advice of a large number of
the opponents to the suggestion.  the purpose of this entire
process is to create a useful and productive group.  ignoring
people whose advice you consider to be unbiased or important is
not exactly a good use of the resources being given you.  since
i believe most of the "yes" voters would also support a moderated
group, and since i myself have already stated i support a moderated
group over an unmoderated one, i don't think dumping the vote on
the floor is a bad idea should a moderator step forward.

i wrote to one respondent that i would change my tune the second
a qualified moderator steps forward.  now how is it going to look
if the vote taker is against the very proposal they are taking
votes for?

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

well, the problem is that a lot of people don't like it.  in fact,
of the votes i have received so far in which the voters express
a negative interest in the group, a large majority would vote
"yes" if the group were moderated.  in any ratio of "yes" to "no"
votes that means the vast majority of the net =wants= the group.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel!  Programs check in and never check out!"
		-- Ken Thompson