Summary of proposal status

Mike Folsom mwfolsom at
Sun Mar 1 17:07:15 EST 1992

In article <CMM. at> kristoff at GENBANK.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) writes:
>Well, it appears that everyone except Fote commented on earlier
>messages about allowing NO votes but gave up before they got to my
>compromise proposals.  There were two options and Fote also seemed to
>go for the discussion option, suggesting a 10 day period for comment
>on the newsgroups charter before calling for votes.
>Option 1: Have a discussion period (10 days?) during which the charter
>for the group will be modified, withdrawn, etc. by "consensus."
>Option 2: Leave the group creation level at 80 YES votes, but allow
>the vote to be overturned if a certain level of NO votes were reached.
>I did not suggest a level, but could see an argument being made for
>requiring a number of NOs > # of YESes.
>Comments, please ... of course we could do both of the above (Option 3).

     #1 seems quite reasonable.  I really don't understand the basis
     of the no votes.  Isn't the issue demonstrating that enough 
     interest exists for the new newsgroup to survive rather than
     showing some folks don't approve of its formation? 

(((stuff deleted)))
                               But I still haven't ((heard ?)) anyone
>suggest a way to prevent lobbying.  Keith has a means of keeping it
>under control and the type of generic message that he mentions would
>possibly do the trick.  Actually, I could just ask the person who
>proposes a newsgroup to tell me in advance if they intend to lobby on
>other newsgroups and to supply a justification for the groups that
>they intend to post to.  I don't think that we want to get in the
>business of looking for specific conformance to lobbying regulations,
>etc., etc., so, again, I think a simple talk with the newsgroup
>proposer would clarify the situation.

     This prompts a question - Would it be "legal" for someone to 
     do a mass e-mailing to people on a list telling them of 
     an impending vote and requesting their support?  If so, 
     then what's the difference between doing this and posting     
     the same message to another newsgroup?  I'm not 
     trying to be picky here but wonder about how you can or
     even if you should regulate this type of "politicking".  I've
     been reading newsgroups for several years now and have only 
     once seen sombody advertise voting on the creation of one 
     newsgroup in another.  And, in that case it seemed appropriate.
     So, while I see your concerns, I wonder how much of a problem 
     really exists.  Seems to me that the cost of solving the problem 
     might be more than the cost of putting up with it.  


Michael W. Folsom          (mwfolsom at unmvm) -or- (mwfolsom at     
Dept. of Biology // UNM               (mwfolsom at       
Albuquerque, NM 87131              office -> 505-277-4228 <- lab

More information about the Bioforum mailing list