"Normally create without a vote"?
biosci-help at NET.BIO.NET
Tue Aug 16 22:56:10 EST 1994
> BIOSCI Administrator <biosci-help at net.bio.net> wrote:
> >I should note that, although this group is in the bionet.prof-society
> >domain, we are voting on it because the Canadian Federation of
> >Biological Societies (CFBS) wants the group to be an open unmoderated
> >discussion group instead of a moderated, announcements-only newsgroup
> >which we would normally create without a vote.
> Whoops! This sounds like historical revisionism to me, Dave! ;-)
> It's certainly not the way things are "normally" done in bionet.*.
Thanks for correcting me on this. Of course, what should I know about
this matter 8-)?!
> How about a replay of the vote on whether we would vote on all
> newsgroup proposals in bionet.*, please. I never did see an
> outcome, and I assumed you had abandoned the whole (bad) idea.
> To my knowledge, *all* newsgroups in bionet.* are still to be
> voted on prior to creation. Why the verbal aside suggesting the
> policy is otherwise?
I suggest that you look in the archives of BIONEWS/bionet.announce if
you don't keep up with the announcements about BIOSCI. The vote on
this was announced over a month or two back, and the policy change was
I'm not about to reopen an issue that has been resolved by the
readership simply in response to an objection by someone who is always
in a small minority (sometimes of only 2 or 3) on virtually all BIOSCI
votes where they venture to stake out a "position." I note, for
example, that the bionet.microbiology vote was 359 YES to 2 NO despite
the fact that you jumped into the discussion about bionet.microbiology
and argued strenuously to move the group to sci.bio.microbiology.
After a while, this kind of opposition amounts to nothing more than
pure and simple harrassment for motives which only you know for
certain. Messages such as the above become exceedingly tiresome.
> Regardless, I applaud the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies
> for wanting to do a proper job of creating a new newsgroup. I think
> it is vitally important for the continued high propagation and public
> esteem (note, *public*) of bionet.* newsgroups that we do not behave
> as though we think we have some special entitlement to use the global
> network of computers that carry Usenet newsgroups.
The mention that this new newsgroup proposal should be voted on was
brought up *by myself* to CFBS, not by them. I did this to be in
compliance with our publicly stated policy. Had I wanted to act in
the manner that you imply above I would have instead simply "rammed"
this through without a vote (kind of unsavory like going outside of
the bionet group on votes to call in non-participants).
Although I am sure that a response from Una will be forthcoming, this
is all the time that I intend to devote on this objection. I could
spend all day arguing about USENET regulations with other people on
the net, but that wouldn't be very productive now, would it?!!
I have work to do.
biosci-help at net.bio.net
More information about the Bioforum