CALL FOR VOTES POLICY STATEMENT

Una Smith una at phy.duke.edu
Fri Mar 6 16:01:14 EST 1992


marder at agri.huji.ac.il writes:

>1. Voting instructions
>I can't remember who it was, but someone suggested that the call for votes
>should explicitly state:-
>YES vote means an intention to read the proposed newsgroup
>NO  means objection to creation of the group
>Those not interested in the proposed newgroup should NOT vote.

I don't like this idea.  It should be yes or no for the proposal,
without conditions.

>2. Inactive group removal
>I have some trouble with Dave Kristofferson's formulation of group
>termination policy.  Perhaps newsgroups put on notice should face a new vote
>and be required to reach the same formula as for new newsgroups.

This strikes me as rather tedious.  I'd rather leave this to the
administrators;  the poor things should have *some* power, to
compensate for all the things they have to do because we want 
them to.

>3. Objectionable groups
>But how about a procedure to close down newgroups after less than 1 year
>(e.g. to allow reorganisation or remove groups that turn nasty/embarassing
>for bionet).

We don't have to decide everything beforehand.  Let's let this one go.



-- 

Una Smith   una at phy.duke.edu    School of the Environment
                                Duke University
                                Durham, NC  27706



More information about the Bioforum mailing list