Creation of us.* groups.
Steve Conley
> Okay, after reading today's postings, I think we are in agreement
> that creating the US groups are more important than the actual
> rules.
As long as there *are* rules, yes. I think we can all agree that alt.*
style creation is not an option for us.*. At least, I hope so.
> I'm getting real tempted to have a poll which says:
> ____ Creating the US groups is very important. I don't care what
> the rules are as long as we have them.
> ____ The actual rules are more important than just having the groups.
> The US groups should not be created until the rules are the way
> I want them.
How about:
____ The rules for the us.* hierarchy should be established by [voting
method] on [date].
____ The above proposal is unacceptable.
For the voting method, I would suggest using Peter da Silva's Single
Transferable Vote system adapted as follows:
--- Begin Blatant Plagiarism ---
Please indicate your preference among the following proposed
charters the us.* hierarchy (1 is best):
[ ] Proposed Charter #1 by Some One, som...@somewhere.com
[10 line summary]
Full text available from: <ftp> <URL> <email>
[ ] Proposed Charter #2 by Other Guy, ot...@college.edu
[10 line summary]
Full text available from: <ftp> <URL> <email>
...
[ ] NONE
And votes are counted according to the STV scheme:
Count all the #1 votes. If one charter has >50% of the #1 votes,
it's the winner.
Otherwise, discard the #1 votes for the charter that has the fewest
#1 (moving all remaining votes up one) and repeat.
NONE is not eliminated by this process, since if a person considers no
other charter acceptable it makes no sense to let their vote ratchet down
to a charter they oppose that strongly.
--- End Blatant Plagiarism ---
NONE would not be allowed to win, even if it had a majority. We *have*
to have a charter.
As for the date of the vote, I think it should begin two weeks after your
initial poll, which should be as soon as possible. That gives enough time
for people to get coherent plans worked out, but doesn't put it so far in
the future that everyone will forget and just start doing something else
with their time.
> Another idea floating around my head was to contact just the top 100
> or 1000 news sites in the US. Form a mailing list and work through
> that process.
Too many cooks. I think announcements on us.config, alt.config, and the
appropriate news.* groups will be sufficient to bring in the people who
are really interested in making us.* work.
> The news admins are the only people that actually matter when it comes
> to get the heirarchy rules in place.
I agree that we have all the power to create, but it is the readers who
will determine whether or not the groups are a success. Their input is
invaluable to a successful us.* hierarchy. Admins and users will need to
work together to create a hierarchy that is both manageable and
popular. I think anyone with an interest in us.* should have a say in
its rules.
Steve Conley