RFD: misc.metric-system
Markus Kuhn
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
[ Note: This document is multiposted in 3 copies because too many
large service providers implement crossposting limits and
would otherwise drop it.
- n.a.n moderation team ]
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a
world-wide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup misc.metric-system. This is
not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural
details are below.
Newsgroup line:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
Units of measurement and related standards affect many aspects of our
daily lives. The global standardization of a single consistent
International System of Units was a major breakthrough for human
civilization and significantly simplified communication, learning,
work and trade all over the planet.
The introduction of the metric system still faces delays in some
areas. Notable examples are consumer communication and traffic
regulations in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as parts
of the aeronautical and typographic industry. It is therefore no
surprise that discussions about the metric system flare up regularly
in many different newsgroups. In particular the slow progress with
metrication in the United States promises to fuel such debates for
many years to come.
A dedicated newsgroup will focus expertise and will provide a medium
for professionals and hobbyists to find advice and suggestions on
metric product standards and conventions. None of the newsgroups in
which metric-system issues flare up frequently is particularly suited
for this topic by charter and readership. The popularity of the
existing US and UK Metric Associations' mailing lists demonstrates
that there is a significant number of people interested in the topic.
Considering the important role that units of measurement play in
everyone's life, this promises to become a quite lively newsgroup.
The name of the proposed group has been the subject of some debate.
The present proposal is motivated by these considerations:
- Although discussions about the metric system focus much on its
slow progress in a small number of countries, the topic is
inherently international in nature and discussions tend to benefit
very significantly from world-wide participation. Therefore,
placing the group under us.* or uk.* would be inappropriate.
- The metric system affects many fields, including consumer
communication and road traffic. Discussions about the metric
system range from basic science and applied engineering
considerations to economic, social, psychological, legal, public
policy and media aspects. This excludes sci.* and leaves misc.* as
the most appropriate hierarchy.
- The metric system is the only system of units used in almost every
region and field of application. "Imperial" and "U.S. Customary"
units are usually discussed in relation to the metric system,
which is within the scope of the proposed group. Other unit
systems have very limited applications and are better discussed in
specialized science or history groups. The proposed group is far
more likely to have specialized children rather than equivalent
siblings, which speaks against an entire misc.measurement.*
hierarchy and justifies a place directly under misc.
- The term "metric system" remains the most well known and most
easily recognized English language term for what is more formally
called the "International System of Units (SI)". This speaks
against group names such as *.si or *.metric.
The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover discussions
about different historic variants of the metric system (CGM, MKS,
various European customary units) as well as contemporary units that
compete with the SI. At the same time, it is narrow enough to exclude
topics such as the history and redefinition of calendars. It leaves
room for the possible later creation of a separate
misc.metric-system.advocacy group for those with a particular interest
in political activities related to metrication.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
Units (SI) or Metric System, including its use in scientific,
technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
END CHARTER.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue
for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
sci.physics
sci.math
sci.engr
soc.culture.usa
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.europe
comp.std.internat
misc.transport.road
Pointers will be posted to the following mailing lists:
usma at colostate.edu (U.S. Metric Association discussion list)
Subscription information: http://www.metric.org/listserv.htm
metric at smartgroups.com (UK Metric Association discussion list)
Subscription only
Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Erik Max Francis
> The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover discussions
> about different historic variants of the metric system (CGM, ...
This should be CGS.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ It's soulful music. It doesn't necessarily sound like ... soul ...
\__/ Sade Adu
ru.ig...@usask.ca
I'm a news.groups regular. Like most of the regulars here, I usually
don't vote on proposals. However, I've got some comments and questions
for you (the proponent) which you might want to consider incorporating
your responses to in the next draft of your RFD ("2nd RFD:...").
In news.groups Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
>Newsgroup line:
>misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
>RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
[snip]
>A dedicated newsgroup will focus expertise and will provide a medium
>for professionals and hobbyists to find advice and suggestions on
>metric product standards and conventions. None of the newsgroups in
>which metric-system issues flare up frequently is particularly suited
>for this topic by charter and readership.
Ok, the inevitable question, what has changed that you think
this proposal has a better chance this time than last? I
certainly don't see an improvement in the proposal itself
that would attract additional readers.
>The popularity of the
>existing US and UK Metric Associations' mailing lists demonstrates
>that there is a significant number of people interested in the topic.
This was stated in the last attempt, yet that attempt failed.
I doubt the mailing lists are relevant to this proposal.
>Considering the important role that units of measurement play in
>everyone's life, this promises to become a quite lively newsgroup.
This also was stated in the last attempt. The way I see it,
unless there has been a HUGE shift in the readership pool,
this group promises to be a low volume group if it manages
to pass.
[snip]
>CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
>Units (SI) or Metric System, including its use in scientific,
I still think that SI should not be in the dominant position of
this statement. Do something like Penny suggested and say "about
the Metric System, including but not limited to SI." The term
Metric System has much more recognition than SI, and is as general
as the group is intended. Otherwise, 2 years later, you risk folks
thinking the group is more restricted than you intend. You also
risk interfering with future splits (if the topic gets popular
enough) if a separate SI group is called for.
[snip]
>END CHARTER.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Arthur L. Rubin
> Newsgroup line:
> misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
As far as content of the proposal is concernted, I
still don't like that line. It's now the only place
where SI is specifically referred to as the
only subject of the group.
However, if the CFV is in the same, I _probably_
won't vote against the group. You STILL need to
round up your yes voters if you expect the
proposal to win.
Phil McKerracher
"Markus Kuhn" <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:10627386...@isc.org...
> ...This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
>
> news.announce.newgroups
> news.groups
> sci.physics
> sci.math
> sci.engr
> soc.culture.usa
> soc.culture.canada
> soc.culture.europe
> comp.std.internat
> misc.transport.road
Having done a quick search of Google groups for discussions of "metric
system" could I suggest also posting it to some of these:
sci.misc
rec.autos
alt.planning.urban
sci.engr.civil
alt.machines.cnc
sci.edu
sci.lang.translation
rec.backcountry
misc.consumers
soc.culture.british
comp.sys.math.advocacy
sci.environment
sci.geo.meteorology
netscape.public.mozilla.general
rec.org.mensa
uk.politics.misc
rec.models.railroad
rec.travel.europe
These all contain long threads on this specific subject.
The reason I didn't vote last time was that I was unaware the vote was
taking place, since I don't normally lurk in any of your original groups.
I don't think we can fairly be accused of spamming the newsgroups if our
purpose is to deflect off-topic discussions to a more suitable place, can
we?
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Russ Allbery
> Having done a quick search of Google groups for discussions of "metric
> system" could I suggest also posting it to some of these:
> sci.misc
> rec.autos
> alt.planning.urban
> sci.engr.civil
> alt.machines.cnc
> sci.edu
> sci.lang.translation
> rec.backcountry
> misc.consumers
> soc.culture.british
> comp.sys.math.advocacy
> sci.environment
> sci.geo.meteorology
> netscape.public.mozilla.general
> rec.org.mensa
> uk.politics.misc
> rec.models.railroad
> rec.travel.europe
Note that you can feel free to forward the RFD yourself to anywhere you
think would be interested.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Terry Simpson
>Having done a quick search of Google groups for discussions of "metric
>system" could I suggest also posting it to some of these:
> sci.misc
> rec.autos
> alt.planning.urban
> sci.engr.civil
> alt.machines.cnc
> sci.edu
> sci.lang.translation
> rec.backcountry
> misc.consumers
> soc.culture.british
> comp.sys.math.advocacy
> sci.environment
> sci.geo.meteorology
> netscape.public.mozilla.general
> rec.org.mensa
> uk.politics.misc
> rec.models.railroad
> rec.travel.europe
Here is a quote from a posting by Kai Henningsen 2003-07-25
************************************************
><ru.ig...@usask.ca> wrote:
>>Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
>
>Popularity is certainly a good indicator. Unfortunately it is impossible
>to measure the popularity of a non-existent group, and I do not know
>how to predict it. For what it is worth, google reports 35,300 results
>for the phrase: "metric-system" 914 of the results were posted
>between Dec 4 last year and now.
For the last year, Google says:
Related groups
sci.physics.* (9 groups)
alt.sci.physics.* (5 groups)
geometry.announcements
alt.usage.english
Searched Groups for "metric system" from Jul 25, 2002 to today.
Results 1 - 100 of about 7,720. Search took 0.47 seconds.
That's slightly over 20 messages a day.
For the last month, it is
Related groups
sci.physics.* (9 groups)
alt.sci.physics.* (5 groups)
geometry.announcements
alt.usage.english
Searched Groups for "metric system" from Jun 25, 2003 to today.
Results 1 - 100 of about 533. Search took 0.32 seconds.
which is slightly under 20 messages a day, so that number seems
reasonable.
Threads found in the last month are among the following:
Re: misc.metric-system news.groups
Re: Romaji are widely used in Japan, sci.lang.japan
Re: Japanese sedans rec.autos.driving
Re: Metric System alt.wisdom
Re: Newton contrasted with Aristotle humanities.philosophy.objectivism
metric system alt.worst.of.usenet
Re: The 24-hour clock vs. am/pm sci.lang
Re: What is the most comprehensive e comp.text.tex
Re: "g" varies with location alt.sci.physics
Re: Help needed sci.lang.translation
re: error geometry.announcements
The Geometric PI Value and its Enemi geometry.announcements
Re: Pound sign alt.usage.english
Re: Caliber? rec.guns
Re: Inches or Metric? uk.d-i-y
Re: Dictattors - Mr Velveteen says h uk.politics.misc
Re: US weight and measures prior to us.legal
Re: [9fans] pop3 before smtp comp.os.plan9
Re: Towiing with 2002 CRV uk.rec.caravanning
Re: Astounded by mcg abbrfeviation! sci.med.pharmacy
Re: The first of two NASA rovers is sci.astro.amateur
Do weight scales measure weight, or alt.sci.physics
Re: Calorie Conversion alt.support.diet
Re: Note to theists: Seems like an a talk.origins
Re: Science against Evolution talk.origins
Re: OT: Aircraft Fuel in Pounds Inst rec.models.scale
Re: 19th century shopping bag - what rec.arts.theatre.stagecraft
Re: Punctuation in Novels alt.english.usage
Re: On trivia alt.david
Would'ja rather weigh or mass alt.sci.physics
Zoom to Scale autodesk.land-desktop3
Re: Origin/meaning of Formula 1? rec.autos.sport.f1
Creation Procedure - A Thought (was news.groups
Re: Meilen ? (Ger) sci.lang
Re: The Education of Ivar and Bam Ly alt.fan.heinlein
Re: The first of two NASA sci.astro.amateur
... I think I'll stop here. I trust I have made my point: it is really all
over the map.
************************************************
Joe Bernstein
either YES or NO on the group, and unlikely to make use of the group,
except conceivably once or twice in a decade, if it's created.
In article <10627386...@isc.org>,
Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system
> RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
>
> Units of measurement and related standards affect many aspects of our
> daily lives. The global standardization of a single consistent
> International System of Units was a major breakthrough for human
> civilization and significantly simplified communication, learning,
> work and trade all over the planet.
I have a lot of trouble with the second sentence from a historical
point of view, but ... (Basically, I'm dubious that the advent of
the metric system was simultaneous enough on a global scale to be a
"breakthrough". Or are you referring to the introduction of SI
here?)
Not that this matters, this is just Rationale text...
> - The metric system is the only system of units used in almost every
> region and field of application. "Imperial" and "U.S. Customary"
> units are usually discussed in relation to the metric system,
> which is within the scope of the proposed group. Other unit
> systems have very limited applications and are better discussed in
> specialized science or history groups. The proposed group is far
> more likely to have specialized children rather than equivalent
> siblings, which speaks against an entire misc.measurement.*
> hierarchy and justifies a place directly under misc.
And here also I'm dubious but prepared to live with it. There isn't
really any reason comp.* and rec.* should have a monopoly on ill-
conceived second-level groups, at worst, and who knows? you might
be right. (Though I doubt it.)
> CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>
> This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
> Units (SI) or Metric System, including its use in scientific,
> technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
> its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
> are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
> related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
> specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
I will nevertheless try again, with two things that may have been
mentioned in previous threads but that I don't remember from the
recent pre-RFD thread here.
1) The wording in this charter strongly suggests that "Metric System"
is synonymous with "International System of Units (SI)". This will
make the charter look ill-informed to anyone who reads it and
defines "metric system" or "Metric System" more broadly. It's
unclear to me how you benefit from giving this impression.
2) There may be potential YES voters who, upon reading this wording,
will conclude that they shouldn't vote YES because their personal
interest in discussing, for example, CGS, will not be served by the
creation of this newsgroup.
I don't know how widespread such differences are. Maybe the vast
majority of people with any interest in things metric at all are well
aware that the SI is the only game in town; maybe there are sects out
there and the CGS are even now planning to destroy the votetaker's
computer in a plot that only Captain SI can foil. Personally, I
hadn't paid any attention at all to the differences between SI and
for example CGS before these discussions, except maybe by way of
being bemused that people worried about such things; this isn't
a matter of personal interest for me at all. I'm just looking
at this from a structural point of view; I'm used to seeing people
argue over whether charter language includes or excludes certain
topics, and I'm used to either seeing the language modified as a
result of those arguments, or seeing proponents dig in and fortify
their position. Now, in this case, I know you've modified the charter,
but this version is *more* SI-specific than what was previously
objected to. So I don't actually know whether this obstinacy will
have a good or bad effect on the group's chances of passage, and in
all honesty it's unlikely to have any effect on how the group works
later (except that your version will encourage some prigs to scream
and yell any time someone posts about CGS). I just know that it
looks like inexplicable obstinacy to me.
I suppose after that rant I should at least offer *some* sort of
alternative, so here goes.
"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
most current and widespread form is the International System of
Units (SI), and of metric units. Their scientific, technical, and
consumer applications, history and definition, and adoption in
fields and regions where other systems or units prevail (metrication)
are all appropriate topics. So are related ..."
(I don't understand the last sentence well enough to re-word it
any further.)
It can be argued that someday SI will end and then the charter will
be out of date, but while my general attitude is that charters live
forever, I seriously doubt that charters actually are likely to live
longer than the SI, without some sort of amendment procedure arising,
and without people generally ignoring them. I remember finding out
about the SI nearly three decades ago, after all.
> END CHARTER.
I marked a post in the pre-RFD thread to answer later, in which you
asked for standard language for the standard bans. Um, OK; here
is some:
"Flames, trolls, and malicious postings are discouraged. Cross-
posting should be done with care, and cross-posting wider than
[n] groups is discouraged. Advertising of products or services
related to the metric system is [choose one] not permitted.
[or]
permitted, but not to exceed one post per month per vendor;
advertising of unrelated products or services is not permitted.
[then continue in either case with:]
Binary postings are not permitted; small binary elements in non-binary
postings, such as PGP signatures, are permitted."
This is a relatively nannyish version; some notes:
1) One post per month per vendor is sort of usual among groups that
explicitly allow ads, but in a group where a lot of vendors might
reasonably be expected to post, raises the spectre of billions
of ads. I don't know that this spectre has any real live
experience behind it, but if there are tons of metric-system
vendors out there, you might not want to go that route. Both
groups I've been a proponent for have used the one-per-month
rule, and neither has been even slightly bombarded with ads.
2) "malicious postings" is because I don't remember the precise
wording I'm used to seeing. Anyway, that whole sentence is
arguably netcop bait, since the definitions of "flame" and
"troll", to say nothing of "malicious", vary widely; the main
positive purpose it serves is that in the case of ISPs that
handle abuse complaints according to charters (and such ISPs
are rumored to exist, though it's been several years since the
last time I saw actual evidence of an ISP looking up a charter),
that sentence gives them cover to terminate the account of someone
who's out to destroy the group.
3) There are various issues concerning the best wording for the
binaries rule. "No binaries" is generally read as banning PGP
signatures, and therefore a bad idea. "No binaries except PGP
signatures" is extremely common, but has the fairly obvious
flaw that if someone tomorrow invents a crucial binary thingie
it'll be banned in dozens of groups; we've had a taste of that
with the fad a while back for X-Face headers. "No binary
postings" is my preference, but on some groups there are persons
who insist on interpreting that sort of phrasing as a ban on
HTML posts, and reporting people who post in HTML to their ISPs
as posting illicit binaries. I tend to take the HTML obsessives
as the least worrisome side of this problem, which is why the
last-named is my preference, but anyway, them's the issues, and
the reasons different people will give you subtly different
wordings for a binaries ban.
None of this is going to cure world hunger, and none of it is even
terribly likely to make or break your newsgroup, should it pass.
(The SI thing is in principle likelier, though still not that
likely.) But it may be helpful to consider the possibilities as
you work out the charter in discussion, by way of ensuring that if
the group is created, there are some people who more or less agree
on how it should be used, there at the outset.
(My bias in favour of using the standard bans may come from the
debate over humanities.classics, where I called for them to be
in the charter and the proponent came up with "Commercial posts
made to the newsgroup should either be related to the field, or
be written in Latin or Greek." We'd just had a long unpleasant
debate over several charters that we'd finally scrapped in favour
of something much shorter; that joke, which in fact went into the
charter and which reflects an attitude that still holds on the
group to this day, giving an automatic pass to anything written in
the ancient languages, was exactly what we needed at that point.)
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/> At this address,
personal e-mail is welcome, though unsolicited bulk e-mail is unwelcome.
Jim Riley
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
>group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
>you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
>suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
I don't think this is the motivation at all. It is an attempt to
bridge a subject that may be approached from both a layman's and a
professional/scientific perspective. The relationship between SI and
cgs may well be more a matter of esoterica easily handled by a FAQ,
rather than a recurring theme for debate and argument in the
newsgroups. If you wanted to indicate a privileged status, you would
adopt the language of the metric advocacy groups who advocate SI (or
modern metric system).
>1) The wording in this charter strongly suggests that "Metric System"
>is synonymous with "International System of Units (SI)". This will
>make the charter look ill-informed to anyone who reads it and
>defines "metric system" or "Metric System" more broadly. It's
>unclear to me how you benefit from giving this impression.
Can charters have footnotes?
>"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
>most current and widespread form is the International System of
>Units (SI), and of metric units.
I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
Would 'standard' be better than 'form'
Your version could also provide a way to explicitly mention cgs and
mks.
Perhaps *after* the next sentence:
As are the relationships among SI and other metric system standards
such as cgs and mks.
But perhaps it is better to use a list after the first sentence.
The following are appropriate topics for discussion:
> Their scientific, technical, and
>consumer applications, history and definition, and adoption in
>fields and regions where other systems or units prevail (metrication)
>are all appropriate topics. So are related ..."
s/Their/Its/ ?
>(I don't understand the last sentence well enough to re-word it
>any further.)
Me neither. I think the last part is about 355 ml cans of Coke.
Does the first part have something to do with things like clothing
sizes and paper sheet form factors?
>1) One post per month per vendor is sort of usual among groups that
What about once per fortnight, or is that too much like giving them an
inch?
> explicitly allow ads, but in a group where a lot of vendors might
> reasonably be expected to post, raises the spectre of billions
> of ads. I don't know that this spectre has any real live
> experience behind it, but if there are tons of metric-system
> vendors out there, you might not want to go that route. Both
> groups I've been a proponent for have used the one-per-month
> rule, and neither has been even slightly bombarded with ads.
--
Jim Riley
Phil McKerracher
"Russ Allbery" <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:87llt22...@windlord.stanford.edu...
> Note that you can feel free to forward the RFD yourself to anywhere you
> think would be interested.
Sure, happy to, I just thought I'd run it past people first though in case
anyone thinks it would be counter-productive.
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Phil McKerracher
"Terry Simpson" <ne...@connected-systems.com> wrote in message
news:bjb2ue$bb4$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> ...Threads found in the last month are among the following:
I agree. I noticed there were quite a few threads where someone has posted a
single metric message and there was no reply, though. I think we can safely
ignore those. On the other hand, one thread was over 500 messages long!
Lots of groups means lots of potential "yes" votes for us, hopefully.
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> "Russ Allbery" <r...@stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:87llt22...@windlord.stanford.edu...
> > Note that you can feel free to forward the RFD yourself to anywhere you
> > think would be interested.
>
> Sure, happy to, I just thought I'd run it past people first though in case
> anyone thinks it would be counter-productive.
As for productive or not is hard to advise, if sent to a group that is
interested in a new more focused group it can help, if sent to a group
where the proposal is not welcomed it can hurt. Choose wisely.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Rick Pikul
jim...@pipeline.com says...
{Foomph...}
> >"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
> >most current and widespread form is the International System of
> >Units (SI), and of metric units.
>
> I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
> of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
There are metric units which are not part of SI, e.g. litres.
--
Phoenix
Jim Riley
wrote:
I don't think that "whose ..." excludes discussion of units not part
of SI.
I think that "discussion of the metric system and of metric units" is
redundant.
--
Jim Riley
Arthur L. Rubin
I've changed my mind. If the Newsgroup line is not changed,
I'll probably vote against.
Joe Bernstein
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:10:00 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
> <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
> >By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
> >group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
> >you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
> >suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
>
> I don't think this is the motivation at all. It is an attempt to
> bridge a subject that may be approached from both a layman's and a
> professional/scientific perspective. The relationship between SI and
> cgs may well be more a matter of esoterica easily handled by a FAQ,
> rather than a recurring theme for debate and argument in the
> newsgroups. If you wanted to indicate a privileged status, you would
> adopt the language of the metric advocacy groups who advocate SI (or
> modern metric system).
It's certainly possible that cgs *in any capacity* would not be a
recurring theme on the group, but please note that the proposed
charter implicitly bans it unless it also involves SI. (In other
words, the "relationship" you mention is the only thing about cgs
that could legally be discussed. litres, as already noted, and
grammes, could not.)
Anyway, on later thought, I did remember that this charter is pretty
nearly what you suggested in the pre-RFD thread here. So I owe the
proponent an apology, since I obviously misjudged his motivation, but
also a warning that he really does need to think for himself; if he
just adopts my suggestion for the next RFD, if there is one, this will
not necessarily bring him lasting happiness either...
> >"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
> >most current and widespread form is the International System of
> >Units (SI), and of metric units.
>
> I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
> of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
I remember having a specific reason for writing that, but I don't
now remember what it was, and I lack time to review the RFD and
pre-RFD threads. I don't want to put off posting this until I
have that time. My best guess is that someone thought the use of
"system" precluded discussion of individual units, and I saw no
harm in explicitly denying that. Oh wait: Maybe this refers to
units that have never been part of *any* metric system, but are
understood to have some sort of metricness to them anyway, like
say kiloparsec. I do remember talk about that in the pre-RFD
thread.
> Would 'standard' be better than 'form'
Probably.
> Your version could also provide a way to explicitly mention cgs and
> mks.
>
> Perhaps *after* the next sentence:
>
> As are the relationships among SI and other metric system standards
> such as cgs and mks.
>
> But perhaps it is better to use a list after the first sentence.
Yes, probably. (Hint to Markus Kuhn: This is *why* you should be
sure to edit your own text. Do you remember that a couple of posts
downthread from Jim Riley's suggestion, there was a list-formatted
charter suggested? I'd recommend you take a look at it.)
> The following are appropriate topics for discussion:
>
> > Their scientific, technical, and
> >consumer applications, history and definition, and adoption in
> >fields and regions where other systems or units prevail (metrication)
> >are all appropriate topics. So are related ..."
>
> s/Their/Its/ ?
system and units - > Their
(grammatically required)
If the units go, so does that.
system - > Its
> >(I don't understand the last sentence well enough to re-word it
> >any further.)
>
> Me neither. I think the last part is about 355 ml cans of Coke.
> Does the first part have something to do with things like clothing
> sizes and paper sheet form factors?
(Hint to mysteriously post-RFD-silent proponent: He wasn't asking
*me* this, he was asking *you*! I had just *said* I didn't know
what you were talking about...)
[Rearranging...]
> >1) One post per month per vendor is sort of usual among groups that
> > explicitly allow ads, but in a group where a lot of vendors might
> > reasonably be expected to post, raises the spectre of billions
> > of ads. I don't know that this spectre has any real live
> > experience behind it, but if there are tons of metric-system
> > vendors out there, you might not want to go that route. Both
> > groups I've been a proponent for have used the one-per-month
> > rule, and neither has been even slightly bombarded with ads.
>
> What about once per fortnight, or is that too much like giving them an
> inch?
One reason I'm uncomfortable with the proponent's just taking your
charter and my standard bans and saying "OK, there's a wrap" is that
I can't answer that. We picked once per month out of the zeitgeist
for soc.history.ancient, back in 1996 I think, and then copied that
for sh.early-modern. Maybe once per fortnight *is* better.
Maybe the group would appreciate a customised joke here, like the
one humanities.classics has, and it should be once per, um,
megasecond? (This is a strictly SI unit, and is a little shorter
than a fortnight, if I did my math right. I don't see anything
comparably simple that's close to a month.)
Does *anyone* have experience of once-per rules actually being applied
in practice on real live newsgroups, and if so, what happened? My
own impression is that they are, like election schemes and so many
other things that go into charters, mainly ways for groups to more
or less agree on what they're planning before they get going. But
since commercial posts are something ISPs are *relatively* likely to
frown upon, I can imagine that somewhere I don't go there have been
actual results from these bans, and if so, I wonder what those have
been.
Certainly the actual results from *no*-advertising bans tend to be
active netcopping, with all the good and bad that accompany that.
(So my understanding of the main point of once-per-month rules is
basically that they represent people agreeing that they won't be
all anal about advertising, as long as it's quiet and infrequent.)
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:25:58 -0400, Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <qEj6b.1674$BG6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>jim...@pipeline.com says...
>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:10:00 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>>> <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>> {Foomph...}
>>
>>> >"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
>>> >most current and widespread form is the International System of
>>> >Units (SI), and of metric units.
>>>
>>> I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
>>> of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
>>
>> There are metric units which are not part of SI, e.g. litres.
>
>I don't think that "whose ..." excludes discussion of units not part
>of SI.
That quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not from the
charter as proposed. So if you think that is correct, you probably
think the charter is off-base.
>I think that "discussion of the metric system and of metric units" is
>redundant.
I don't.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gene Nygaard
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <qEj6b.1674$BG6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:10:00 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>> <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
>> >group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
>> >you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
>> >suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
>>
>> I don't think this is the motivation at all. It is an attempt to
>> bridge a subject that may be approached from both a layman's and a
>> professional/scientific perspective. The relationship between SI and
>> cgs may well be more a matter of esoterica easily handled by a FAQ,
>> rather than a recurring theme for debate and argument in the
>> newsgroups. If you wanted to indicate a privileged status, you would
>> adopt the language of the metric advocacy groups who advocate SI (or
>> modern metric system).
>
>It's certainly possible that cgs *in any capacity* would not be a
>recurring theme on the group, but please note that the proposed
>charter implicitly bans it unless it also involves SI. (In other
>words, the "relationship" you mention is the only thing about cgs
>that could legally be discussed. litres, as already noted, and
>grammes, could not.)
But grams are certainly part of SI, even if you spell them grammes (I
don't think anybody advocates that spelling in English any more).
Furthermore, I think you'd have to be unreasonably anal to think that
discussion of liters was precluded. After all, this unit was not only
redefined by the CGPM *after* the SI was introduced, but it is also
officially listed as acceptable for use with SI.
However, while I might quibble with your reasoning, I like your
proposed solution.
The real question is whether abvolts and statcoulombs and maxwells and
dynes and ergs are legitimate areas of discussion in their own right.
I don't think they should be precluded (though I certainly agree with
you that they are not very likely to come up very often other than in
a comparison to SI)--I do like that phrase in your proposed revision
which states "metric system, whose most current and widespread form is
the International System of Units (SI)" That hits the nail on the
head, I think, leaving room for anything else which is part of the
general perception of "metric system." Any charter which is contrary
to that general perception is likely to be ignored anyway, and that's
not something that anybody would look to find in this charter in any
case.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gene Nygaard
Nobody seeing a newsgroup listing including that description is going
to think that anything in the general perception of "metric system" is
precluded by that condensed listing of the subject of the newsgroup.
You'd have to be much more direct and explicit in the charter to get
anyone to think that things which are "metric" but which are not part
of one particular system known as SI are precluded (and if you wanted
to do that, the _name_ of the newsgroup should certainly also include
"si" somewhere).. But it isn't going to cross anybody's mind upon
seeing that description that they should even look at the charter to
see if anything non-SI is outside the charter.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Eugene Miya
unmoderated status.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 06:51:42 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:25:58 -0400, Rick Pikul <rwp...@idirect.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qEj6b.1674$BG6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>>jim...@pipeline.com says...
>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:10:00 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
>>>> <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> {Foomph...}
>>>
>>>> >"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
>>>> >most current and widespread form is the International System of
>>>> >Units (SI), and of metric units.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
>>>> of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
>>>
>>> There are metric units which are not part of SI, e.g. litres.
>>
>>I don't think that "whose ..." excludes discussion of units not part
>>of SI.
>
>That quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not from the
>charter as proposed. So if you think that is correct, you probably
>think the charter is off-base.
I know that the quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not
from the charter as proposed. I do not understand why you believe
that this knowledge would probably cause me to think the charter is
off-base.
>>I think that "discussion of the metric system and of metric units" is
>>redundant.
>
>I don't.
Then it is confusing.
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>The Proposal lacks a section discussing and justifying the reasons for
>unmoderated status.
I would think that that would be the default, and that the burden
would be on justifying moderated status.
Why don't you tell us why you think it should be moderated, or it
should not be moderated, as the case may be. Or at least why you
think it is a close enough issue so that you think it should be
discussed.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 01:10:00 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
><j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>"misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric system, whose
>>most current and widespread form is the International System of
>>Units (SI), and of metric units.
>
>I don't understand the ", and of metric units"? Aren't 'units' part
>of the 'system', even the basis of the system?
>
>Would 'standard' be better than 'form'
No. There are no officially adopted "standards" in the meaning you
are using for any of the other non-SI systems, such as cgs
electromagnetic system, cgs Gaussian system, meter-ton-second system,
meter-newton-second system, meter-hyl-second system, or whatever, as
far as I know, and there certainly are not such standards for all of
them.
Besides, as a standard, the SI is the same everywhere, and
"widespread" is a non sequitur. You'd have to change that to "widely
followed" or something like that. But as I pointed out, that would
give the wrong impression that we have competing official standards
for entire subsystems of units.
The word "form" works well for me. Maybe there is something else that
would work as well, but I don't think "standard" does it.
Since one of the main reasons for mentioning "International System of
Units" at all would be to facilitate hits when using a search engine,
I'd suggest that the French term on which the abbreviation SI is based
be included as well, at least in the charter itself (not necessarily
in the newsgroup description): Système international d'unités.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
Just giving you the benefit of the doubt, I guess.
>>>I think that "discussion of the metric system and of metric units" is
>>>redundant.
>>
>>I don't.
>
>Then it is confusing.
Not in the least. I'm not convinced that it is redundancy, and
redundancy is rarely confusing in any case. There's no way anybody is
going to interpret this in any narrower sense than intended, just
because "units" is included. There is a tiny bit of room for such
misinterpretation if "units" is not included. In any case, it's
certainly nothing to worry about in such a short proposed charter, one
way or the other.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Jim Riley
wrote:
Why would I benefit from your doubt?
>>>>I think that "discussion of the metric system and of metric units" is
>>>>redundant.
>>>
>>>I don't.
>>
>>Then it is confusing.
>
>Not in the least. I'm not convinced that it is redundancy, and
>redundancy is rarely confusing in any case. There's no way anybody is
>going to interpret this in any narrower sense than intended, just
>because "units" is included. There is a tiny bit of room for such
>misinterpretation if "units" is not included. In any case, it's
>certainly nothing to worry about in such a short proposed charter, one
>way or the other.
How does inclusion of the unqualified "metric units" help prevent
misinterpretation?
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
What limiting qualifier would you want? Seems to me that you are
misinterpreting it even with "and metric units" in there. Oh, well. I
still think it will help some people understand it. If I were the
proponent, I wouldn't see that as an impediment to adopting
Bernstein's suggestion. Just accept the fact that no matter how hard
you try, you'll never explain it so that _everybody_ in the world can
understand it.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Oh, well.
You perhaps would be more effective addressing your comments directly
to the RFD, whose message ID is <10627386...@isc.org>
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:11:30 GMT, Gene Nygaard <gnyg...@nccray.com>
One of three originals, I think.
I can't imagine what you are talking about. Markus Kuhn isn't going
to be able to tell me what limiting qualifier _you_ think should be
added to this proposed change.
This is in fact directly in the discussion thread requested by that
RFD, same subject header and everything. The message ID you cited is
the one which should appear at the top of the References header in
this message. I am addressing myself directly to the RFD. If the
proponent doesn't at least read those responses which are sent to
news.groups (which is in fact the only group this branch is posted
in), then it wouldn't be a very serious proposal, would it?
I can't imagine why I was ever giving you the benefit of the doubt
about anything.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 03:15:45 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:11:30 GMT, Gene Nygaard <gnyg...@nccray.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, well.
>>
>>You perhaps would be more effective addressing your comments directly
>>to the RFD, whose message ID is <10627386...@isc.org>
>
>One of three originals, I think.
It is the one that was cross-posted to news.groups. You could of
course if you were to so choose follow up to one of the other two,
whose followup was directed to news.groups as well.
>I can't imagine what you are talking about. Markus Kuhn isn't going
>to be able to tell me what limiting qualifier _you_ think should be
>added to this proposed change.
If you have any comments about the charter that he has proposed they
would best be addressed to him. I think the charter that he proposed
was fine. You may disagree.
It would certainly be more fruitful than your continuing to state what
I must be thinking, and masking it under a false politeness. Don't
you think? Or so it would seem to me.
--
Jim Riley
Joe Bernstein
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> If you have any comments about the charter that he has proposed they
> would best be addressed to him. I think the charter that he proposed
> was fine. You may disagree.
Didn't you say a ways upthread that you didn't understand one of the
charter's, um, *three* sentences? This is fine for a second-level
misc.* group?
> It would certainly be more fruitful than your continuing to state what
> I must be thinking, and masking it under a false politeness.
I have no clue why you're angry at him for defending my suggestions,
except that perhaps the anger in this subthread is an outcome of the
displacements necessary to preserve an image of a proponent as
responsive, based on the pre-RFD thread in which he genuinely was,
even though said proponent has vanished from the face of the earth
during the RFD phase, now longer than two weeks.
It's probably futile by this point to assume that he's actually
reading the posts in this thread, but just in case: People who didn't
know about your pre-RFD thread have a right to discuss the proposal
too. In this case, that includes someone who's defending words I
wrote, not all of which I'm any longer defending; but the same would
apply to any number of people who might say "A-OK!" and tell you to
go with the charter you have. Point is, it was *your choice* to have
a long pre-RFD discussion here with the kind of nastiness that's likely
to entail; nobody forced you into it. It's also *your choice* whether
to talk to people your RFD brings out of the woodwork, but they are,
unlike news.groups regulars, likely to vote on your proposal, so you
should consider whether that's wise.
In the meantime, I do think the rest of us should at least try to
be civil to one another. Even if you, Jim Riley, take it as "false
politeness", it sure beats true rudeness.
Joe Bernstein
PS for the sake of completeness: Although unresponsive proponents
routinely do tempt me to vote NO, I don't think I've ever actually
done so, and I see no reason to start with this proposal. I'm irked
that a post in which I directly answered a request the proponent made
has not been acknowledged by said proponent, but such is life; if the
proponent is silent as an aspect of playing the vote result game,
then it's Gene Nygaard he should be addressing, not me.
Jim Riley
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <J7cbb.48100$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> If you have any comments about the charter that he has proposed they
>> would best be addressed to him. I think the charter that he proposed
>> was fine. You may disagree.
>
>Didn't you say a ways upthread that you didn't understand one of the
>charter's, um, *three* sentences? This is fine for a second-level
>misc.* group?
>
>> It would certainly be more fruitful than your continuing to state what
>> I must be thinking, and masking it under a false politeness.
>
>I have no clue why you're angry at him for defending my suggestions,
I have not the faintest clue whether Mr.Nygaard preferred the previous
version that said the group was about SI; the version that is
currently under discussion; or your proposed changes. I really don't.
If he was defending your assertion that the 3rd sentence of the
charter doesn't make sense by making no comment, I really think he
should comment directly on the RFD instead of 4th hand.
Sometimes when people are commenting on the name of the group, or its
charter, they do it from the perspective of knowing what they want it
to mean. They then try to determine whether the charter or name
suggests what they want it to mean.
But the test that should be made, is whether someone who reads the
name or reads the charter fresh will understand what it means.
Let's say that the charter of a group is to discuss what 2+2 is. The
charter says, "To discuss the value 4". The person who knows why the
charter was being written, may nod their head that the charter is
completely understandable. But someone who reads "To discuss the
value 4" will not know that the purpose of the group is to discuss
what 2+2 is.
In this case, your language reads (paraphrased), "To discuss the
metric system and metric units". The latter suggests that discussion
of the meter will be on topic. But then one has to wonder why you
have to say metric units when the metric system includes the units.
If you had to be present during the writing of the charter to
understand its meaning, it is not a very good charter. Recall when I
asked about the ... and metric units, you wrote:
I remember having a specific reason for writing that, but I don't
now remember what it was, and I lack time to review the RFD and
pre-RFD threads.
I don't know whether Mr.Nygaard believes that the qualification of
metric system also qualifies metric units. That is, since the metric
system that will be discussed is SI, then the metric units that will
be discussed are those that are not SI.
If the discussion of non-SI metric units will be a somewhat minor
subtopic, then it is better to cut the charter off after system. And
then under a list of potential subtopics, address the issue of other
metric units. If you try to apply a different qualifier to units than
is applied to system it will make it harder to understand and elevates
a minor subtopic to equality with the main topic.
>It's probably futile by this point to assume that he's actually
>reading the posts in this thread, but just in case: People who didn't
>know about your pre-RFD thread have a right to discuss the proposal
>too. In this case, that includes someone who's defending words I
>wrote,
I agree. I think it would be more fruitful for Mr.Nygaard to discuss
the proposal put forward by the actual proponent, rather than telling
me that what I think (or so it seems to him) and that the meaning of
the additional language is needed - even though you initially could
not recall your purpose in adding it.
> not all of which I'm any longer defending; but the same would
>apply to any number of people who might say "A-OK!" and tell you to
>go with the charter you have. Point is, it was *your choice* to have
>a long pre-RFD discussion here with the kind of nastiness that's likely
>to entail; nobody forced you into it. It's also *your choice* whether
>to talk to people your RFD brings out of the woodwork, but they are,
>unlike news.groups regulars, likely to vote on your proposal, so you
>should consider whether that's wise.
Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
I did not attack your proposed changes. I did question your
characterization of the proponent's intent - not because I had
suggested the language, but because I knew why it was written in the
way it was, and that the proponent had accepted the changes precisely
to remove the SI-excluwive language. I said that I didn't understand
the reason for the "and units".
>In the meantime, I do think the rest of us should at least try to
>be civil to one another. Even if you, Jim Riley, take it as "false
>politeness", it sure beats true rudeness.
Please see <ae5hmv4qmdgg8o4h7...@4ax.com>
Note that it includes attributions for:
Bernstein's proposed revisions.
Riley's saying that he doesn't understand "and metric units"
Pikul's explanation.
Riley's argument that he didn't see how Bernstein's language
clarified the purpose of the "and metric units" language.
9 day's later, Nygaard "corrects" me by saying:
That quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not from the
charter as proposed. So if you think that is correct, you probably
think the charter is off-base.
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
That's what I mean. You are confused, in at least two ways.
You seem to think that the normal or is an exclusive or.
You don't understand subordinate clauses. Bernstein's proposal
wouldn't limit discussion of the "metric system" to SI. It said
discussion of the metric system, and merely identified its predominant
modern form as SI.
If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't
you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this? He wasn't
trying to say the same thing the proponent was.
>I did not attack your proposed changes. I did question your
>characterization of the proponent's intent - not because I had
>suggested the language, but because I knew why it was written in the
>way it was, and that the proponent had accepted the changes precisely
>to remove the SI-excluwive language. I said that I didn't understand
>the reason for the "and units".
>
>
>>In the meantime, I do think the rest of us should at least try to
>>be civil to one another. Even if you, Jim Riley, take it as "false
>>politeness", it sure beats true rudeness.
>
>Please see <ae5hmv4qmdgg8o4h7...@4ax.com>
>
>Note that it includes attributions for:
>
> Bernstein's proposed revisions.
>
> Riley's saying that he doesn't understand "and metric units"
>
> Pikul's explanation.
>
> Riley's argument that he didn't see how Bernstein's language
> clarified the purpose of the "and metric units" language.
>
>9 day's later, Nygaard "corrects" me by saying:
>
> That quote is from Bernstein's proposed alternative, not from the
> charter as proposed. So if you think that is correct, you probably
> think the charter is off-base.
I stand by that statement. You are confused.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:23 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>>Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
>>through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
>>would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
>>proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
>
>If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't
>you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this? He wasn't
>trying to say the same thing the proponent was.
With whom would I be in agreement with?
Are you referring the the proponent's language during the pre-RFD or
as written in the present RFD?
--
Jim Riley
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:25:37 GMT, Gene Nygaard <gnyg...@nccray.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:23 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
>>>through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
>>>would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
>>>proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
>>
>>If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't
>>you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this? He wasn't
>>trying to say the same thing the proponent was.
>
>With whom would I be in agreement with?
Does it matter? No. Me--is that enough?
I still don't know where you are coming from. Why don't you come
right out and tell everyone whether or not you think the metric system
outside of SI *should be* a legitimate topic for discussion in this
proposed newsgroup.
>Are you referring the the proponent's language during the pre-RFD or
>as written in the present RFD?
I don't think that Joe Bernstein is going to waste his time correcting
something that is no longer in issue, and I certainly wouldn't. The
current one, of course. If you want to offer the revision history as
evidence of the current meaning, that's fine--but it's up to you to
spell that out in detail if you do so. The old proposals aren't part
of this thread.
But in the current language, we have, in the first of the two
sentences in the proposed charter itself,
This newsgroup is for discussion about the International
System of Units (SI) or Metric System, including ...
Now, of course, we do use the word "or" in several different ways.
But there are several clues indicating that in this instance, what is
intended is the identification of synonyms, two different terms
referring to the same thing. We have the use of initial capital
letters in "Metric System." We have the placement of what, in a
broader meaning of the second term, is a subset of that term, first.
But most of all, we have that clearly identified as the intended
meaning up above in the "whereas" clauses, where it says:
- The term "metric system" remains the most well known and most
easily recognized English language term for what is more formally
called the "International System of Units (SI)".
The "more formally called" part is a clear indication that these are
intended by the proponent to be two terms with exactly the same
meaning, isn't it?
Paraphrasing Joe Bernstein, since this is contrary to normal usage,
what this will do is make the author of the charter look like an
incompetent, bumbling fool (and it probably wouldn't have any effect
whatsoever on the topics actually discussed in the newsgroup if it is
actually formed.) That's the way I'd put it, anyway, so if this
paraphrase varies in some details from what Joe said, don't blame him.
Joe Bernstein's proposed language fixes this, by clearly identifying
SI as a subset of the broader term "metric system," without
unnecessarily bogging down in details of what else it actually
includes. He proposed:
misc.metric-system is for discussion of the metric
system, whose most current and widespread form
is the International System of Units (SI), and of
metric units.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Joe Bernstein
Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:27:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
> <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <J7cbb.48100$Aq2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> >Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> But the test that should be made, is whether someone who reads the
> name or reads the charter fresh will understand what it means.
> In this case, your language reads (paraphrased), "To discuss the
> metric system and metric units". The latter suggests that discussion
> of the meter will be on topic. But then one has to wonder why you
> have to say metric units when the metric system includes the units.
> If you had to be present during the writing of the charter to
> understand its meaning, it is not a very good charter. Recall when I
> asked about the ... and metric units, you wrote:
>
> I remember having a specific reason for writing that, but I don't
> now remember what it was, and I lack time to review the RFD and
> pre-RFD threads.
OK. Note that I also in the same paragraph gave *two* reasons for
including them, just the same. 1) Possibility that someone reading
the charter would think the group *didn't* allow discussion of,
say, metres, because that's not about the system but about an
individual unit in the system. 2) Possibility of discussion of
units not part of any "metric system" to date, but conceived of as
metric, such as kiloparsec.
> I don't know whether Mr.Nygaard believes that the qualification of
> metric system also qualifies metric units. That is, since the metric
> system that will be discussed is SI, then the metric units that will
> be discussed are those that are not SI.
I am not, at least, trying to intervene in whatever you and he are
discussing. I long ago lost track of that. I did think the
discussion was getting unnecessarily rancorous, in a way that
shouted to me "Where is the proponent?"
> If the discussion of non-SI metric units will be a somewhat minor
> subtopic, then it is better to cut the charter off after system. And
> then under a list of potential subtopics, address the issue of other
> metric units. If you try to apply a different qualifier to units than
> is applied to system it will make it harder to understand and elevates
> a minor subtopic to equality with the main topic.
This is a good argument against *my* language (independently of
whatever it is you and Mr. Nygaard are talking about). Note that in
fact I *have* said that I would be happier with a charter that used a
clearly-formatted list of sub-topics. (Ideally with each of those
comprehensible as well, rather than the mess the proposed charter ends
with.)
In this case, I might phrase it as follows. The following DOES NOT
take account of the revision history and therefore DOES NOT include
all topics already in the charter - I've already been online longer
this afternoon than I should've been - but for what it's worth:
"This newsgroup is for discussion of topics related to the metric
system. Examples of such topics include:
- The International System (SI) in relation to older versions of
metric systems;
- The SI in relation to other systems of measurement (including
the process of conversion to SI from other systems);
- Units of measurement used in the SI, or in other metric systems,
or in ways that suggest "metricness" (their theoretical and
practical definitions, their use, etc.) "
Something like that. The third item is extremely clumsy; it could
be shortened, perhaps, to something like 'Metric units, whether or
not a part of the SI' ?
I dunno. As I said, I don't have lots of time right now. The
disadvantage of a formatted list is of course the premium it puts
on conciseness, which has never been one of my strongest points...
> >It's probably futile by this point to assume that he's actually
> >reading the posts in this thread, but just in case: People who didn't
> >know about your pre-RFD thread have a right to discuss the proposal
> >too. In this case, that includes someone who's defending words I
> >wrote,
Please note that this sub-paragraph is addressed to the proponent,
and uses "you" accordingly.
> > not all of which I'm any longer defending; but the same would
> >apply to any number of people who might say "A-OK!" and tell you to
> >go with the charter you have. Point is, it was *your choice* to have
> >a long pre-RFD discussion here with the kind of nastiness that's likely
> >to entail; nobody forced you into it. It's also *your choice* whether
> >to talk to people your RFD brings out of the woodwork, but they are,
> >unlike news.groups regulars, likely to vote on your proposal, so you
> >should consider whether that's wise.
>
> Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
> through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
> would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
> proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
Therefore, "you" here also referred to the proponent. Last time I
checked, Jim Riley, *you* were not the proponent (someone named Markus
Kuhn is, I believe), and therefore the above remarks were not addressed
to you. All clear?
Joe Bernstein
Jim Riley
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:34:32 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:25:37 GMT, Gene Nygaard <gnyg...@nccray.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:41:23 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Huh? I listened to the comments in the pre-discussion. I read
>>>>through the BIPM site and tried to suggest some improved language that
>>>>would not be as SI exclusivist (though I don't think that was ever the
>>>>proponent's intent). The proponent did choose to adopt my language.
>>>
>>>If you agree that the proponent's language is exclusivist, why don't
>>>you see that Bernstein's proposed revision changes this? He wasn't
>>>trying to say the same thing the proponent was.
>>
>>With whom would I be in agreement with?
>
>Does it matter?
Thank you for asking.
>No.
Oh, I see you weren't asking. It must have been rhetorical.
>Me
Well, we are getting somewhere.
>--is that enough?
Probably irrelevant. Let me rephrase your question. "Do you think
that the proponent's language is exclusivist?"
Not particularly. I disagree with Joe Bernstein's premise that this
was the proponent's intent, or that he had ignored comments during the
pre-RFD discussion. If you will review the pre-RFD discussion you
will see where the proponent wrote:
"its history and definition" now clearly includes CGS, MKS, the
redefinition of the inch in terms of SI units, etc., without
bloating the text unnecessarily.
or if you read the rationale, where he wrote:
The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover
discussions about different historic variants of the metric system
(CGM, MKS, various European customary units) as well as
contemporary units that compete with the SI.
You would at least think it was not the intent to excude all but SI.
If on the other hand, if your recollection of a previous discussion is
such that you write:
By this point I have the impression that privileging SI in this
group's newsgroup line and charter is a non-negotiable point for
you. Otherwise you surely would have adopted one of the many
suggestions already made for ways to avoid doing so.
Then you are more likely to believe that the charter excludes all but
SI. Or if you read the above, then read the charter, you may conclude
that it is excluding all but SI. If you had participated in pre-RFD
discussion or read the rationale, you might think differently.
Of course, the real question is how someone who read the charter for
the first time would react. Would they read it and decide that group
was only for SI advocates, and exit the group, or become disruptive?
I don't think that they would.
>I still don't know where you are coming from. Why don't you come
>right out and tell everyone whether or not you think the metric system
>outside of SI *should be* a legitimate topic for discussion in this
>proposed newsgroup.
I agree with what the proponent wrote in the rationale:
The proposed charter is meant to be broad enough to cover
discussions about different historic variants of the metric system
(CGM, MKS, various European customary units) as well as
contemporary units that compete with the SI.
>>Are you referring the the proponent's language during the pre-RFD or
>>as written in the present RFD?
>
>I don't think that Joe Bernstein is going to waste his time correcting
>something that is no longer in issue, and I certainly wouldn't. The
>current one, of course. If you want to offer the revision history as
>evidence of the current meaning, that's fine--but it's up to you to
>spell that out in detail if you do so. The old proposals aren't part
>of this thread.
I you recall, you insinuated that I agreeed that proponent's language
was exclusivist. I agree that the language in the pre-RFD discussion
may have given that impression. A change was made in response to that
concern, so I don't see that Joe Bernstein's proposed language changes
that impression, since a sufficient change had already been made.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
1) Maybe we have a different understanding of the word 'system'. I
would think that the 'International System of Units', would include
the units it is a system of. I would think that there would be a
greater possiblity that someone reading the charter would think that
system does include its units, and would either try to guess at some
reason for including the extra text (which *might* lead them to (2)),
or they will just think that it is superfluous.
>> If the discussion of non-SI metric units will be a somewhat minor
>> subtopic, then it is better to cut the charter off after system. And
>> then under a list of potential subtopics, address the issue of other
>> metric units. If you try to apply a different qualifier to units than
>> is applied to system it will make it harder to understand and elevates
>> a minor subtopic to equality with the main topic.
>
>This is a good argument against *my* language (independently of
>whatever it is you and Mr. Nygaard are talking about).
I agree.
>In this case, I might phrase it as follows. The following DOES NOT
>take account of the revision history and therefore DOES NOT include
>all topics already in the charter - I've already been online longer
>this afternoon than I should've been - but for what it's worth:
I think what the proponent wants the topic to be:
SI, but not only SI
Rather than
metric systems, especially SI
>"This newsgroup is for discussion of topics related to the metric
>system. Examples of such topics include:
> - The International System (SI) in relation to older versions of
> metric systems;
> - The SI in relation to other systems of measurement (including
> the process of conversion to SI from other systems);
'conversion' could suggest multiplying inches by 2.54 to convert to
cm, rather than metrication.
> - Units of measurement used in the SI, or in other metric systems,
> or in ways that suggest "metricness" (their theoretical and
> practical definitions, their use, etc.) "
>
>Something like that. The third item is extremely clumsy; it could
>be shortened, perhaps, to something like 'Metric units, whether or
>not a part of the SI' ?
You need examples.
>I dunno. As I said, I don't have lots of time right now. The
>disadvantage of a formatted list is of course the premium it puts
>on conciseness, which has never been one of my strongest points...
--
Jim Riley
Markus Kuhn
> PS for the sake of completeness: Although unresponsive proponents
> routinely do tempt me to vote NO, I don't think I've ever actually
> done so, and I see no reason to start with this proposal. I'm irked
> that a post in which I directly answered a request the proponent made
> has not been acknowledged by said proponent, but such is life;
My apologies for having been somewhat unresponsive in this RFD.
I have archived all comments made very carefully and review and
considering them right now, while preparing the CVF. The main
reasons why I was somewhat unresponsive was that others have
already excellently presented all the points that I could
have made. Add to that a slight discussion fatigue from the pre-RFD,
a vacation, and a busy live.
My review of the RFD discussion so far has concluded that there are no
major changes to the charter necessary. Some overinterpreted it in ways
that are IMHO not supported by the text of the proposed charter. I believe
such concerns can be addressed better in the rationale rather than by
bloating the charter, which I prefer to keep nice and short. (The rationale
is now getting almost as long as the preamble of an average international
treaty, and I had to supress my urge to actually phrase it as a single
sentence, as is customary for UN declarations :-)
Here is the current draft, which I hope to be pretty much ready for CFV
submission:
Newsgroup line:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
Units of measurement and related standards affect many aspects of our
daily lives. The global standardization of a single consistent
International System of Units was a major breakthrough for human
civilization and significantly simplified communication, learning,
work and trade all over the planet.
The introduction of the metric system still faces delays in some
areas. Notable examples are consumer communication and traffic
regulations in the United States and United Kingdom, as well as parts
of the aeronautical and typographic industry. It is therefore no
surprise that discussions about the metric system flare up regularly
in many different newsgroups. In particular the slow progress with
metrication in the United States promises to fuel such debates for
many years to come.
A dedicated newsgroup will focus expertise and will provide a medium
for professionals and hobbyists to find advice and suggestions on
metric product standards and conventions. None of the newsgroups in
which metric-system issues flare up frequently is particularly suited
for this topic by charter and readership. The popularity of the
existing US and UK Metric Associations' mailing lists demonstrates
that there is a significant number of people interested in the topic.
Considering the important role that units of measurement play in
everyone's life, this promises to become a quite lively newsgroup.
The name of the proposed group has been the subject of some debate.
The present proposal is motivated by these considerations:
- Although discussions about the metric system focus much on its
slow progress in a small number of countries, the topic is
inherently international in nature and discussions tend to benefit
very significantly from world-wide participation. Therefore,
placing the group under us.* or uk.* would be inappropriate.
- The metric system affects many fields, including consumer
communication and road traffic. Discussions about the metric
system range from basic science and applied engineering
considerations to economic, social, psychological, legal, public
policy and media aspects. This excludes sci.* and leaves misc.* as
the most appropriate hierarchy.
- The metric system is the only system of units used in almost every
region and field of application. "Imperial" and "U.S. Customary"
units are usually discussed in relation to the metric system,
which is within the scope of the proposed group. Other unit
systems have very limited applications and are better discussed in
specialized science or history groups. The proposed group is far
more likely to have specialized children rather than equivalent
siblings, which speaks against an entire misc.measurement.*
hierarchy and justifies a place directly under misc.
- The term "metric system" remains the most well known and most
easily recognized English language term for what is more formally
called the "International System of Units (SI)". This speaks
against group names such as *.si or *.metric.
The proposed charter has equally been the subject of some debate. The
present proposal is motivated by these considerations:
- It refers equally to both the official modern name "International
System of Units (SI)" and the colloquial English term "metric
system". This is in the interest of rapid recognition by both
readers and search-engine users. Any further distinction between
these terms is deliberately left to explanatory periodic postings.
- It is broad enough to cover discussions about different historic
variants of the metric system (e.g., CGS, MKS, various European
customary units) as well as contemporary units that compete with
the SI (e.g., inch, pound, Fahrenheit, calorie).
- It is narrow enough to exclude topics that are not related to
metric units (e.g., the history and redefinition of calendars).
- It covers product standards and conventions that are not part of
any official definition of the metric system, but that are closely
related to metric units (e.g., metric clothing sizes, paper
formats, engineering components, traffic regulations). These can
be considerably more complex topics than the metric system itself,
leading to discussions of particular interest to consumers and
practitioners.
- It leaves room for the possible later creation of a separate
misc.metric-system.advocacy group for those with a particular
interest in political activities related to metrication.
- It was written with the expectation that the topic is unlikely to
attract large non-plain-text postings, commercial advertising or
unsocial behaviour in any particular way, leaving these issues to
common sense and USENET etiquette.
- It is brief.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
Units (SI) or metric system, including its use in scientific,
technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
END CHARTER.
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain
Joe Bernstein
Markus Kuhn <n03W44...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote on 22 Sep 2003:
> > PS for the sake of completeness: Although unresponsive proponents
> > routinely do tempt me to vote NO, I don't think I've ever actually
> > done so, and I see no reason to start with this proposal. I'm irked
> > that a post in which I directly answered a request the proponent made
> > has not been acknowledged by said proponent, but such is life;
>
> My apologies for having been somewhat unresponsive in this RFD.
> The main
> reasons why I was somewhat unresponsive was that others have
> already excellently presented all the points that I could
> have made. Add to that a slight discussion fatigue from the pre-RFD,
> a vacation, and a busy live.
I had two issues with the RFD.
1) No standard bans. You had written in the pre-RFD thread, requesting
sample text. I provided sample text in the RFD thread - this is the
post "in which I directly answered a request the proponent made". I
saw no comment pro or con on the existence of such bans, in direct
contradiction to what you wrote above, and certainly no such comment
from you; now I see:
> My review of the RFD discussion so far has concluded that there are no
> major changes to the charter necessary.
> - It was written with the expectation that the topic is unlikely to
> attract large non-plain-text postings, commercial advertising or
> unsocial behaviour in any particular way, leaving these issues to
> common sense and USENET etiquette.
Now, standard bans are *not* required.
Nothing requires you to listen to a news.groups regular who suggests
them.
But I am *seriously* offended by a proponent whose response to that
suggestion is to request text, and who then comes back *two months
later* to say that he didn't really need it after all.
> CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>
> This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
> Units (SI) or metric system, including its use in scientific,
> technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
> its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
> are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
> related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
> specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
>
> END CHARTER.
2) I was and remain unhappy for various reasons with the charter as
presented. These reasons include the unclearness of your final
sentence, but the main reason is that this charter equates the SI
with "the metric system", which is historically *and* currently
a falsehood.
Your response to this I snipped to save editing time; I've got other
things to do today. But the core of it seems to be that by reading
your charter by what it explicitly says I am engaged in
"overinterpretation".
I recognise that charters don't have to be perfect, and that they are
unlikely to be decisive as to what happens in a group. (Although
they are about a thousand times more likely to have an effect than
rationales, which makes your attempt to throw a sop to critics by
changing the rationale of your proposal look really stupid.)
I recognise that you are not, in fact, the model of an unresponsive
proponent, as witness your behaviour in the pre-RFD thread.
But I am *really angry*. Maybe I'll calm down by the time any CFV
appears; maybe not. If not, you might just see me cast a NO vote
after all.
In any event, you should consider whether you want the discussion
to have lain dead for two months before you suddenly have a CFV
come out. We have recent evidence that long delays may not be
conducive to group creation (misc.kids.family-life). At this
point you have something of a problem no matter what - if you do
a new RFD, you can just barely squeak in before the Christmas
news.announce.newgroups shutdown, but if you make any changes that
lead to *another* RFD, you can't. But when I tell you that by
going straight to CFV after all this time, you increase your risk
of failing the vote, this is not just an attempt to get you to
actually *deal* with what I've said rather than brush it off as you
have above; this is also advice as disinterested as I can now supply.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <bo0o8p$ai7$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Markus Kuhn <n03W44...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> CHARTER: misc.metric-system
>>
>> This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
>> Units (SI) or metric system, including its use in scientific,
>> technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
>> its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
>> are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
>> related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
>> specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
>>
>> END CHARTER.
>2) I was and remain unhappy for various reasons with the charter as
>presented. These reasons include the unclearness of your final
>sentence, but the main reason is that this charter equates the SI
>with "the metric system", which is historically *and* currently
>a falsehood.
I agree with Joe about the first sentence of the CHARTER. I really
think that if anyone takes the charter to heart down the line, it's
going to cause some headaches. It's so simple to just remove
"International System of Units (SI) or" and cleans up that aspect
of the charter so much that I don't see what is preventing it.
>Your response to this I snipped to save editing time; I've got other
>things to do today. But the core of it seems to be that by reading
>your charter by what it explicitly says I am engaged in
>"overinterpretation".
It isn't just you, Joe. I'm sure there were at least two others
(me included) that pointed this out (including suggested changes)
in the past, so you don't have to take it quite as personally.
[snip]
>But I am *really angry*. Maybe I'll calm down by the time any CFV
>appears; maybe not. If not, you might just see me cast a NO vote
>after all.
Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on
regardless of their emotional state.
ru
--
My standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
Russ Allbery
> Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
> stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on regardless
> of their emotional state.
This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the group
is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing about if
the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much about the
charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name, although maybe
I'm missing some huge issue.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Markus Kuhn
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>ru igarashi <ru.ig...@usask.ca> writes:
>
>> Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
>> stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on regardless
>> of their emotional state.
>
>This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the group
>is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing about if
>the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much about the
>charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name, although maybe
>I'm missing some huge issue.
My view exactly. I am grateful to Joe Bernstein and others for their
detailed suggestions, which I studied very carefully, but looking at them
with some distance (a few weeks), I am still convinced that the
SI versus metric system concerns raised were not addressing a real problem.
Some of the comments made (e.g., liter/gram not being an SI unit) suggest
even that they may be based merely on unfamiliarity with the topic.
These comments did not seem to come from within the community that
I know is likely to use the proposed group. The metric system
and the International System of Units are today in practice to
a first approximation synonyms (though the text of the proposed
charter neither supports nor denies this!), and I believe that
it is perfectly good taste to leave any more detailed historic nitpicking to
FAQs and the like. Keeping the charter short and simple was my paramount
concern.
I also thank Joe Bernstein for (in my eyes) essentially confirming that
there is no commonly agreed need for and no really good choices for
standard boilertext phrases with regard to advertising and "binary" messages
and that anything added is unlikely to make a difference in practice.
Therefore I'm more than happy to keep the charter short, keeping
in mind that noone has suggested even the slightest reason for why
the proposed group is any more likely to attract these kinds of
postings more than the average USENET group.
Another suggestion in the RFD that I decided not to follow up is to
add a reason for the unmoderated status of the group. Again, someone
else answered that immediately with exactly what I would have answered
as well, namely that unmoderated status is the default for USENET groups.
[I realise that I sent in the proponent's questionaire somewhat late,
so there might have to be a second RFD anyway for technical reasons.]
Erik Max Francis
> My view exactly. I am grateful to Joe Bernstein and others for their
> detailed suggestions, which I studied very carefully, but looking at
> them
> with some distance (a few weeks), I am still convinced that the
> SI versus metric system concerns raised were not addressing a real
> problem.
I have to agree. In particular, I've been quite puzzled by certain
news.group regulars' defiant declaration that they intend to vote "no"
on a newsgroup for which their objections are seemingly minor and,
particularly when it's clear they don't have much interest in using the
group should it be approved anyway, wouldn't bother the people who
actually _would_ be using the group.
It sounds to me almost like there's some kind of payback element
involved -- "Take my advice or I'll vote no, even though I don't
particularly have any interest in the group either way."
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ There is another world, which is not of men.
\__/ Li Bai
Pat Norton
The knowledge of metric system semantics, divergence of views, and
strong opinions are also found in the wider usenet community.
I don't know how many people are influenced by the precise wording of
a charter for a live group. I have never read one and would not know
where to find one if I cared. Usenet posters have expectations of what
is on-topic for the term 'metric system'. They demonstrate this quite
clearly in other newsgroups.
The clue is in the group name. Please can we have the group now?
Joe Bernstein
news:<3FA4C6FE...@alcyone.com>...
> Markus Kuhn wrote:
> > I am still convinced that the
> > SI versus metric system concerns raised were not addressing a real
> > problem.
> I have to agree. In particular, I've been quite puzzled by certain
> news.group regulars' defiant declaration that they intend to vote "no"
> on a newsgroup for which their objections are seemingly minor and,
> particularly when it's clear they don't have much interest in using the
> group should it be approved anyway, wouldn't bother the people who
> actually _would_ be using the group.
>
> It sounds to me almost like there's some kind of payback element
> involved -- "Take my advice or I'll vote no, even though I don't
> particularly have any interest in the group either way."
I do not have a history of voting NO on groups that don't take my
advice; you can readily verify this by searching for NO votes from me,
and comparing them to the number of groups I've commented on here.
I haven't decided whether to vote NO on this group. I am personally
offended, yes. The proponent requests text, I supply it, he then *two
months later* gets around to telling me I was wasting his time and
mine by doing *what he asked*? This is offensive. Oh, and in the
same post he also informs me that by reading something the way it's
written I'm doing "overinterpretation".
The fact is that I normally *don't* vote NO when a proponent is an
absolute jackass to all and sundry, so just plain fairness demands
that I not vote NO on this group either, since this proponent is
rather far from that level of behaviour. Furthermore, I do recognise
that you *may* never need the standard bans, and that you *may* never
find yourselves buried in an endless flamewar over whether it's really
acceptable to talk about CGS in the group. I don't see why it's so
desirable to create these possibilities - especially when, as Ru
Igarashi just pointed out, the proponent's claimed preference for a
short charter would be *served* by taking out the "metric system = SI"
balderdash. But I do admit that the possibilities may never become
realities.
Bottom line, though, for me at least, is that when an asshole is an
asshole, you don't get surprised. But when a person who's been
behaving pretty normally suddenly pulls this sort of stunt - and in
such a way that *everything* I've offered him is dismissed as
worthless - that hurts, and I have as much right as the next guy to
yell and scream about it.
I think in ethical terms, this probably isn't good enough. The odds
aren't all that large that the disenfranchised CGS enthusiasts are
going to be back here six months from now begging and pleading for
misc.metric-system.not-si. And I normally don't cast purely emotional
votes.
But regardless, proponents who behave badly do *get* increased NO
votes, and although it's out of character for me to be the one to
threaten one, let alone for me to actually cast one, it's not
especially odd given that I'm the particular news.groups regular whose
statements were most consistently repudiated.
Joe Bernstein
news:<bo2gbg$m1i$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> Some of the comments made (e.g., liter/gram not being an SI unit) suggest
> even that they may be based merely on unfamiliarity with the topic.
In my case, perhaps long distance from it. I found a book in the
local university library with precise details about the SI when I was,
oh, nine years old, perhaps. The kind of kid I was ate that sort of
detail up like candy.
My understanding is that a kilogram is an SI unit, and a gram at most
derivatively so. I don't think I originated the liter example. The
example I remember quoting from someone else was kiloparsec.
At any rate, though, it's precisely the fact that I *am* familiar with
the topic, at whatever distance, that leads me to be upset at your
insistence on the bogus claim that SI and the metric system are
identical. I *know* they're not; for example, that the definition of
what a meter is has *changed* since the French Revolution. It
endlessly baffles me that you continue to insist, more or less
simultaneously, that your charter language is OK because the metric
system is and has always been exactly the same as SI (which is false),
and that your charter language is OK because it doesn't actually
equate the two (which is also false, but maybe you don't see that if
you're not a native speaker of English?), and that you want a brief
charter, but you just have to lengthen it by retaining this
contentious wording. I mean, what am I missing here?
> These comments did not seem to come from within the community that
> I know is likely to use the proposed group.
This much is true where I'm concerned; I'm unlikely to use the group.
I can't speak for others - I thought the "kiloparsec" question had
been raised by a potential reader, and I thought Gene Nygaard was
presenting himself as a potential reader too.
> The metric system
> and the International System of Units are today in practice to
> a first approximation synonyms (though the text of the proposed
> charter neither supports nor denies this!),
Unsnipped as a demonstration of what I wrote above.
In case this is really a case of your not seeing something: The ",
or" in the charter's first sentence is, in English, a weak statement
of synonymy. It's not equivalent to "and/or". Maybe someone else
here can make this clearer in grammatical terms, but anyway, as it
stands, the text *does* support the synonymy you state; it is not
neutral.
> I also thank Joe Bernstein for (in my eyes) essentially confirming that
> there is no commonly agreed need for and no really good choices for
> standard boilertext phrases with regard to advertising and "binary" messages
> and that anything added is unlikely to make a difference in practice.
In fairness to you, I do note that standard bans are a relatively
recent innovation; my very rough estimate is that about half of the
Big 8's groups precede their existence, and the other half were mostly
created within maybe three years. So on this point, I think you have
some grounds - which is not the same as conceding that you've behaved
well towards me personally.
> Another suggestion in the RFD that I decided not to follow up is to
> add a reason for the unmoderated status of the group. Again, someone
> else answered that immediately with exactly what I would have answered
> as well, namely that unmoderated status is the default for USENET groups.
This is actually a rather odd historical artifact. I have no idea why
that person chose to comment on your RFD; he doesn't usually
participate in these threads. But he was pointing back to a
quasi-standard RFD format from around 1990, which I think retained at
least some currency for a couple of years before being supplanted by
the one now used. (The transition was definitely complete by
mid-1993, when the UVV came along.) Basically, it went like this:
CHARTER
Name: misc.metric-system
Status: unmoderated
Purpose: to propagate the lie that all metric systems are really SI
And then you would have whatever text you were going to have
justifying each of these decisions; usually not very much, but what
there was would focus much more on name and status than on purpose.
In a nutshell, the modern format no longer has even a ritualistic
demand of proponents to justify unmoderated status, but in 1990 things
were different.
I'm pretty sure it's 1990, but I may be off and it may be 1991. I
just posted the posts in which you can find examples named; if you
search those rather long posts on the word "purpose" you should be OK.
Phil McKerracher
"Pat Norton" <pat.n...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:4d4b14.031102...@posting.google.com...
Can I just say I agree. I would be happy to have just about any group with
the word "metric" somewhere in the title, so we would have somewhere on
usenet to discuss this important issue. Anything is better than nothing. I
don't care what the charter is or where it fits in the hierarchy.
I would prefer it to be in the big 8, unmoderated and without binaries
simply because these maximise its availability and usefulness.
The important thing now is to spread the word, so that interested parties
know the vote is actually happening. Last time I was unaware of it.
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>> Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
>> stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on regardless
>> of their emotional state.
>This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the group
>is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing about if
>the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much about the
>charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name, although maybe
>I'm missing some huge issue.
Netcopping. Like it or not, we still have folks that insist that
the CHARTER is law after the group is created. We try to discourage
this and present alternatives. But why give them extra ammo,
especially in a group that has a higher potential for flamage than
most?
Markus Kuhn
>asshole, you don't get surprised. But when a person who's been
>behaving pretty normally suddenly pulls this sort of stunt - and in
>such a way that *everything* I've offered him is dismissed as
>worthless - that hurts, and I have as much right as the next guy to
>yell and scream about it.
I am somewhat surprised/puzzled by your quite emotional response.
After all, not much of the boiler-plate discussion was really
specific to misc.metric-system. As a news.groups regular can easily
recycle the relevant text fragments from your proposals in future
discussions, and I had assumed (and even expected!) that any offered
boiler-plates would be exactly that, some standard thing that had been
proposed and discussed here in depth for many RFDs before, and cut&pasted
here for my information. I have now learned that there is no such thing,
perhaps not that surprising given that the UVV advise documents didn't
list any either, which you confirmed with your excellent discussion of the
issue. No reason for anyone to get hurt or feel that they have wasted
any time ...
The thing I did reject was your suggestions to add a statement about the
relative meaning of "SI" and "metric system" to the charter, because
I firmly believe that this is beyond the charter, better discussed in
FAQs and the like. I have said so here several times and haven't
been convinced otherwise by the discussion.
> At any rate, though, it's precisely the fact that I *am* familiar with
> the topic, at whatever distance, that leads me to be upset at your
> insistence on the bogus claim that SI and the metric system are
> identical. I *know* they're not; for example, that the definition
> of what a meter is has *changed* since the French Revolution
[... the length of the meter, on the other hand, has not changed,
just the accuracy with which it can be presented has improved
several times, even after the BIPM called the thing SI. In that
sense, it is still the same unit.]
Anyway, I am definitely looking forward to a lively and in-depth
discussion of this issue with you in the new group, should you
then still be interested.
> It endlessly baffles me that you continue to insist, more or less
> simultaneously, that your charter language is OK because the metric
> system is and has always been exactly the same as SI (which is false)
The charter just says that either "the international system
of units OR metric system" can be discussed in this group.
I deliberately made NO effort to clarify whether I meant the
inclusive or the exclusive "or", making IMHO pretty good use of the
notorious ambiguity of the English language to make NO statement
whatsoever about whether SI and "the metric system" are the same
thing or two different topics both adequate for discussion in
this group.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>ru igarashi <ru.ig...@usask.ca> writes:
>>> Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
>>> stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on regardless
>>> of their emotional state.
>>This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the group
>>is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing about if
>>the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much about the
>>charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name, although maybe
>>I'm missing some huge issue.
>Netcopping. Like it or not, we still have folks that insist that
>the CHARTER is law after the group is created. We try to discourage
>this and present alternatives. But why give them extra ammo,
>especially in a group that has a higher potential for flamage than
>most?
Forgot to add:
And if a proposal for a SI specific group is ever wanted (say, an SI
advocacy group) and this charter is brought up, the explicit mention
of SI in the defining statement will have to be explained away ("group
creation charters are not intended to be set in stone"). There would
be no need for such an explanation if the first sentence didn't mention
SI.
Crossposting policies are affected by both, too. In the presense of a
specialized group, postings on the respective subtopic should go to
that group. But if folks start refering to the charters (either
when writing up a new proposal, deciding to post, or to complain about
crosspostings), then it's going make the m.m-s hierarchy look like
it has looser policies. At the very least, the proponents of a
SI subgroup will have to more strongly state in their charter something
to the effect that postings on their topic should not be posted in
the other groups regardless of the topics they appear to allow.
Sure, the issue should be accomodated well enough in an FAQ, but
an accomodation wouldn't even be needed if the group didn't start
out looking like a SI group.
If this kind of wording propagates into the group's FAQ (which should
really define the polices of the group), then those problems just get
worse because arguments will then be based on a working document. If
we can't convince the proponent the wording is poor, then the chances
of this propagating into a working policy document is just that much
higher. If whoever writes, say, the group FAQ has a better charter
to start from, then the FAQ will be that much better off.
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the
>> group is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing
>> about if the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much
>> about the charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name,
>> although maybe I'm missing some huge issue.
> Netcopping.
Oh, please. Just because some people insist on being pedantic assholes to
each other on-line doesn't mean that we should carefully write every
charter to try to anticipate the ways they'll rules-lawyer. Idiots will
be idiots no matter how carefully worded the charter is.
> Like it or not, we still have folks that insist that the CHARTER is law
> after the group is created. We try to discourage this and present
> alternatives. But why give them extra ammo, especially in a group that
> has a higher potential for flamage than most?
Because those people are wrong and should be ignored, not catered to. In
just writing about them for the above paragraph you have given them more
credence and attention than they deserve.
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>The thing I did reject was your suggestions to add a statement about the
>relative meaning of "SI" and "metric system" to the charter, because
>I firmly believe that this is beyond the charter, better discussed in
>FAQs and the like. I have said so here several times and haven't
>been convinced otherwise by the discussion.
That's different from what I remember about Joe's proposal. He wasn't
asking you to go into any detailed explanations--he merely asked you
to change it to more clearly conform to the facts. In essence,
instead of saying that "International System of Units" is a synonym
for "metric system," talking instead about the "metric system, whose
most current and widespread form is the International System of
Units (SI)."
>
>> At any rate, though, it's precisely the fact that I *am* familiar with
>> the topic, at whatever distance, that leads me to be upset at your
>> insistence on the bogus claim that SI and the metric system are
>> identical. I *know* they're not; for example, that the definition
>> of what a meter is has *changed* since the French Revolution
>
>[... the length of the meter, on the other hand, has not changed,
>just the accuracy with which it can be presented has improved
>several times, even after the BIPM called the thing SI. In that
>sense, it is still the same unit.]
>
>Anyway, I am definitely looking forward to a lively and in-depth
>discussion of this issue with you in the new group, should you
>then still be interested.
It won't happen, because you let the interest die and let the
discussion of formaton of the group die before any call for votes, and
because you didn't include many of the groups in which such
discussions now take place. For example, alt.usage.english, to which
many bring their interest in discussing capitalization of units and
their symbols, in eponymous naming of units, and the like. Or
uk.legal and some other U.K. groups, where the sale of bananas by the
pound or the kilogram is a periodic issue.
>
>> It endlessly baffles me that you continue to insist, more or less
>> simultaneously, that your charter language is OK because the metric
>> system is and has always been exactly the same as SI (which is false)
>
>The charter just says that either "the international system
>of units OR metric system" can be discussed in this group.
>I deliberately made NO effort to clarify whether I meant the
>inclusive or the exclusive "or", making IMHO pretty good use of the
>notorious ambiguity of the English language to make NO statement
>whatsoever about whether SI and "the metric system" are the same
>thing or two different topics both adequate for discussion in
>this group.
>
>Markus
That's your biggest mistake. Any ambiguity in the meaning of the word
"or" in the charter is resolved by the statement in your rationale
that "The term 'metric system' remains the most well known and most
easily recognized English language term for what is more formally
called the 'International System of Units (SI)'." Clearly "or" is
meant to identify perfect synonyms, two different names for the same
thing, not two overlapping sets nor one set included within the other.
That's a perfectly legitimate role for the rationale to play, to
provide assistance in interpreting the charter itself. Joe
Bernstein's proposal would have resolved this nicely--though it would
be good if you fixed the statement in the preamble as well.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Ken Arromdee
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>I have to agree. In particular, I've been quite puzzled by certain
>news.group regulars' defiant declaration that they intend to vote "no"
>on a newsgroup for which their objections are seemingly minor and,
>particularly when it's clear they don't have much interest in using the
>group should it be approved anyway, wouldn't bother the people who
>actually _would_ be using the group.
The answer is simple. If they don't say they're going to vote "no", you don't
have to listen to them, since voting "no" is the only threat they can make.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"How pleasant it would be if only we lived a hundred years ago when it was
easy to get servants."
"It would be horrible... We'd be the servants." -- Isaac Asimov
Gene Nygaard
wrote:
>In article <878ymzg...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>>ru igarashi <ru.ig...@usask.ca> writes:
>>
>>> Ok, I'm not angry. Perplexed, yes. Worried, yes. As the charter
>>> stands, I think it's worth a news.groups regular voting NO on regardless
>>> of their emotional state.
>>
>>This completely fails my "is anyone going to actually care after the group
>>is created" mental test for whether something is worth arguing about if
>>the proponent doesn't agree. I think you're caring too much about the
>>charter of an unmoderated group with a pretty obvious name, although maybe
>>I'm missing some huge issue.
>
>My view exactly. I am grateful to Joe Bernstein and others for their
>detailed suggestions, which I studied very carefully, but looking at them
>with some distance (a few weeks), I am still convinced that the
>SI versus metric system concerns raised were not addressing a real problem.
>Some of the comments made (e.g., liter/gram not being an SI unit) suggest
>even that they may be based merely on unfamiliarity with the topic.
>These comments did not seem to come from within the community that
>I know is likely to use the proposed group. The metric system
>and the International System of Units are today in practice to
>a first approximation synonyms
That's just plain wrong.
There must be billions (that's thousands of millions, not millions of
millions) of items, and millions of different products, in the United
States with nutrition labels with calories on them. Calories are
metric units, but they are definitely not SI, in any of their various
flavors, and not acceptable for use with SI. They are not cgs either.
The FDA regulations require calories, and are so poorly written that,
though the FDA told me it is acceptable to include joules as well, I'd
be surprised if more than a hundred different products do so in the
United States.
There are many other places where both calories and joules appear on
the labels. In Canada, they might have more of them with joules than
we do in the U.S., but few people use the joules. Of the old
English-units countries, Australia may be the only one that makes
significant use of joules in this context.
I have never seen any doctor or nurse measure blood pressure in
anything other than millimeters of mercury. I have never seen any
blood pressure measuring device which could use different units.
Those are not SI units, and not acceptable for use with SI. They are
not cgs units either. I don't know of any _named_ subsystem of units
which includes them.
I think the American medical profession also uses centimeters of water
for lung pressure, another non-SI unit (and also not cgs).
Measurements of hardness of minerals on at least some scales (Knoop,
Brinell?) use pressures in kg/mm². Tensions of bicycle spokes are
measured in kilograms force in most of the world, including the United
States. I have a torque wrench in "meter kilograms" and they are
still readily available. You often see thrusts of rocket and jet
engines in kilograms force (including on some of the NASA pages, I
think, though I didn't double check that). You do see them in Tom
Clancy's nonfiction book Airborne, for example, and in many
encyclopedias which normally express measurements in both English and
metric units. Those were the normal units used for this purpose in
Russia until the late 1980s or early 1990s. You still quite often see
pressure gauges in "kg/cm²" as well. Yet those formerly acceptable
kilograms force are most definitely not a part of the International
System of Units.
I have an air compressor with dual units on the gauge, pounds force
per square inch and bars. If you go to rec.scuba.* you will find many
divers, especially outside the U.S., using bars. Many still use
millibars in meteorology, though many also hang onto those obsolete
units by cloaking them in a marginally SI name, hectopascals. Bars
are definitely not SI, and they never fit into any cgs system any
better than they fit into the mks systems. Bars, unlike any of the
other units discussed above, are on the list of units temporarily
acceptable for use with SI, whose use is not to be encouraged.
There are pockets of dinosaurs in the astronomy and theoretical
physics fields which still use cgs units. One of the last holdouts in
the advanced physics textbooks did switch to SI a couple of years ago.
You also see gals and milligals (mGal), cgs units of acceleration,
regularly used in geodesy and geophysics.
Curies and rads and rems are still common, and not SI (the
corresponding SI units are becquerels, grays, and sieverts). For
example, in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) still measures radon levels in homes and workplaces in
picocuries per liter.
Many of the units I have discussed here are not part of any subsystem
of the metric system which is normally identified by name. You might
find grams force and kilograms force as part of a noncoherent
gravitational mks system or gravitational cgs system.
>(though the text of the proposed
>charter neither supports nor denies this!), and I believe that
>it is perfectly good taste to leave any more detailed historic nitpicking to
>FAQs and the like. Keeping the charter short and simple was my paramount
>concern.
I've discussed my disagreement with this before.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Arthur L. Rubin
> This much is true where I'm concerned; I'm unlikely to use the group.
> I can't speak for others - I thought the "kiloparsec" question had
> been raised by a potential reader, and I thought Gene Nygaard was
> presenting himself as a potential reader too.
Much as I would like the proponent to listen to me, kiloparsec
was mine this time, and I didn't claim to be a potential reader.
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
Arthur L. Rubin
> I would prefer it to be in the big 8, unmoderated and without binaries
> simply because these maximise its availability and usefulness.
I think "no binaries" got lost in this RFD. I could be wrong,
but I don't recall it there. I don't think it's a major change,
so it COULD be in the CFV.
Joe Bernstein
Arthur L. Rubin <ronni...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> I think "no binaries" got lost in this RFD. I could be wrong,
> but I don't recall it there. I don't think it's a major change,
> so it COULD be in the CFV.
It hasn't been in any RFD so far and is not in the text the proponent
recently posted as a proto-PQ. During the pre-RFD discussion he
asked for an example of standard-bans text. By the time I got
around to answering, the RFD proper had come out, so I suggested
it in the RFD thread. His reply to that suggestion came somewhere
in the ballooning rationale of the proto-PQ he posted a few days
ago, basically saying that he'd become convinced that bans wouldn't
be needed; after I yelled and screamed that I thought he'd been
disrespectful of me, he switched to saying that I'd convinced him
that they wouldn't be needed (which is a plausible, though not
ideal, reading of what I actually posted).
I don't know what the standards are that UVV use to decide what's
a major change and what isn't, and having recently been burned
vis-a-vis rec.skiing.alpine.moderated, don't care to guess. There
seem to be two schools of thought - 1) Does it really make a big
difference? (Then no, and it can go into the CFV without an
intervening RFD.) 2) Does it have to do with a major area of
RFD discussion? (Then arguably yes, and an intervening RFD would
be needed.) I have no idea how individual UVV members balance these
two standards, if they don't just pick one or the other, nor do I
know for sure where along the chain enforcement happens - with Bill
Aten, with the particular UVV, with the nan moderators, or at every
stage?
Joe Bernstein
> In article <3FA65D...@sprintmail.com>,
> Arthur L. Rubin <ronni...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think "no binaries" got lost in this RFD. I could be wrong,
> > but I don't recall it there. I don't think it's a major change,
> > so it COULD be in the CFV.
> There
> seem to be two schools of thought - 1) Does it really make a big
> difference? (Then no, and it can go into the CFV without an
> intervening RFD.) 2) Does it have to do with a major area of
> RFD discussion? (Then arguably yes, and an intervening RFD would
> be needed.)
Well, oops, stupid me for posting before reading the UVV post; it's
all academic now because the PQ is in, and as we learned in some
recent debate or other, once the PQ is in nobody short of God can
withdraw or change it.
Still not sure how I'll vote. Gene Nygaard's post listing a dozen
metric units not part of SI makes it considerably harder for me to
accept that the charter as it stands offers full coverage of the
topic the name claims, and thus considerably easier for me to
justify voting my emotional reaction, NO. (Shoot, I'd missed the
renaming of the curie. What's up with *that* ?)
Flipside, though, hasn't this group already failed its vote once?
Yep, 85:21:5, with people I recognise as news.groups regulars
splitting in about the same proportions as everyone else. It
seems stupid to act to prolong indefinitely the current lack of
the group when all it would take to make me happy would be for
everyone to ignore the blasted charter anyway.
But I just don't think it makes any sense to require written
charters as part of the process if potential voters are then
encouraged to assume they will never be seen again. This smacks
of ritual to me: propitiate the net.gods by writing some text and
you can get your group; it has close parallels in the realm of
ancient Near Eastern religions (the Pyramid and Coffin Texts, the
Enuma Elish, for example). I thought charter-writing was supposed
to have something to do with figuring out what the group would be for,
and in this case, it seems to have brought out the discovery that not
only is there a permanent floating flamewar over metrication, but
there is a local standing potential for flames over whether the SI
is the entire universe of "metric system" material. And in this
local dispute, this charter takes a stand; which is not how I thought
good charter-writing was supposed to be done.
Russ Allbery
> I think "no binaries" got lost in this RFD. I could be wrong, but I
> don't recall it there. I don't think it's a major change, so it COULD
> be in the CFV.
No Big Eight groups outside of comp.binaries.* allow large binaries.
Putting it in every single charter is redundant, although harmless.
Erik Max Francis
> Still not sure how I'll vote. Gene Nygaard's post listing a dozen
> metric units not part of SI makes it considerably harder for me to
> accept that the charter as it stands offers full coverage of the
> topic the name claims, and thus considerably easier for me to
> justify voting my emotional reaction, NO.
I really don't see this being a big problem. Russ Allberty had
previously commented about "rules-lawyers" and people being deliberately
and disruptively pedantic. I've encountered Gene Nygaard numerous times
on Usenet, and each time has involved him being utterly pedantic, far
past the point of usefulness, on SI issues.
He is an example of someone that obviously people on the newsgroup
(should it pass) will have to contend with, but his behavior is merely
an extreme example and is hardly likely to reflect a significant or
substantive debate. He has these kinds of discussions everywhere he
goes. He's going to be pedantic because he likes to do that. That
doesn't mean that he's actually pointing out a significant problem that
any future regular of the group is going to have a problem with.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Exercise is wonderful. I could sit and watch it all day.
\__/ Louis Wu
Joe Bernstein
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> No Big Eight groups outside of comp.binaries.* allow large binaries.
> Putting it in every single charter is redundant, although harmless.
Eh? What happened to the Bolo group?
-- JLB
Russ Allbery
> Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> No Big Eight groups outside of comp.binaries.* allow large binaries.
>> Putting it in every single charter is redundant, although harmless.
> Eh? What happened to the Bolo group?
That was basically an argument over the definition of "large." Bolo maps
are a few KBs. Regardless, the issue appears to have completely gone away
(likely because few people play Bolo any more), and I don't think servers
are generally making an exception for it.
Bill Aten
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
[ Note: This document is multiposted in 3 copies because too many
large service providers implement crossposting limits and
would otherwise drop it.
- n.a.n moderation team ]
Newsgroups line:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Nov 2003.
This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about
the proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Votetaker: Bill Aten <bi...@netagw.com>
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
- The term "metric system" remains the most well known and most
easily recognized English language term for what is more formally
- It was written with the expectation that the topic is unlikely to
attract large non-plain-text postings, commercial advertising or
unsocial behaviour in any particular way, leaving these issues to
common sense and USENET etiquette.
- It is brief.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
This newsgroup is for discussion about the International System of
Units (SI) or metric system, including its use in scientific,
technical, and consumer applications, its history and definition, and
its adoption in fields and regions where other units of measurement
are still prevalent (metrication). Included within its scope are
related global standards and conventions, for example metric product
specifications and consumer-product labelling practice.
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE:
Extract the ballot from the CFV by deleting everything before and after
the "BEGINNING OF BALLOT" and "END OF BALLOT" lines. Don't worry about
the spacing of the columns or any quote characters (">") that your
reply inserts.
PLEASE, do not send the entire CFV back to me as this mail is archived.
Mark the ballot and then MAIL it to: <metri...@netagw.com>
Just "replying" to this message should work, but check the "To:" line.
In order to properly record your vote, please provide your REAL NAME
(or established Usenet handle) and indicate your desired vote in the
appropriate locations inside the ballot.
Examples of how to properly indicate your vote:
[ YES ] example.yes.vote
[ NO ] example.no.vote
[ ABSTAIN ] example.abstention
[ CANCEL ] example.cancellation
DO NOT modify, alter or delete any information in this ballot!
If you do, the voting software will probably reject your ballot.
If you do not receive an acknowledgment of your vote within three
days, contact the votetaker about the problem. You are responsible
for reading your ack and making sure your vote is registered correctly.
======= BEGINNING OF BALLOT: Delete everything BEFORE this line =======
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Official CFV Name: misc.metric-system
| Usenet Voting Ballot [MMS-75-1] (Do not remove this line!)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Please provide your real name, or your vote may be rejected.
| Established Usenet handles are also acceptable. Place ONLY your name
| (ie. do NOT include your e-mail address or any other information;
| ONLY your name) directly after the colon in "Voter name:" on the
| following line.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Voter name:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Insert YES, NO, ABSTAIN, or CANCEL inside the brackets for each
| newsgroup listed below (do not delete the newsgroup name):
|
| Your Vote Newsgroup
| --------- ---------
| [ ] misc.metric-system
|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
======= END OF BALLOT: Delete everything AFTER this line ==============
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES:
Standard Guidelines for voting apply. Only one vote per person, no
more than one vote per account. Votes must be mailed directly from
the voter to the votetaker. Anonymous, forwarded, or proxy votes
are not valid. Votes mailed by WWW/HTML/CGI forms are considered
to be anonymous votes.
Vote counting is automated. Failure to follow these directions may
mean that your vote does not get counted. If you do not receive an
acknowledgment of your vote within three days, contact the votetaker
about the problem. It's your responsibility to make sure your vote
is registered correctly. Duplicate votes are resolved in favor of
the most recent valid vote. Names, addresses, and votes of all voters
will be published in the final voting results post.
DO NOT redistribute this CFV in any manner whatsoever. The purpose of
a Usenet vote is to determine the genuine interest of persons who would
read a proposed newsgroup. Soliciting votes from disinterested parties
defeats this purpose. Only the votetaker, the news.announce.newgroups
moderator, and the proponent (if specifically authorized by the votetaker)
are permitted to distribute copies of this CFV.
Distribution of pre-marked or otherwise modified copies of this CFV is
generally considered voting fraud and should be reported immediately to
the votetaker or the UVV <con...@uvv.org>. In cases where voting fraud
is determined to have occurred, it is standard operating procedure to
delete ALL votes submitted by the violator. When in doubt, ask the
votetaker.
DISTRIBUTION:
The only official sources for copies of this CFV are the locations listed
below, the UVV web site at http://www.uvv.org/, and the votetaker's e-mail
CFV server which can be reached at <metric-cf...@netagw.com>.
This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups
comp.std.internat
misc.transport.road
sci.engr
sci.math
sci.physics
soc.culture.canada
soc.culture.europe
soc.culture.usa
Pointers directing readers to this CFV will be posted in these newsgroups
and mailing lists:
comp.std.misc
de.comp.standards
rec.backcountry
Mailing list name: U.S. Metric Association
Submission address: us...@colostate.edu
Mailing list name: UK Metric Association
Submission address: met...@smartgroups.com
Brian Edmonds
>> No Big Eight groups outside of comp.binaries.* allow large binaries.
>> Putting it in every single charter is redundant, although harmless.
> Eh? What happened to the Bolo group?
Actually, rec.arts.anime.creative would have been a more compelling
example. But then that's a moderated group, which is something of a
special case, and the postings are far from "large" by modern Usenet
standards. The largest post we allow is 200kB, and anything over 64kB
generates a warning to the poster suggesting that future postings be
smaller.
Then again, I have no idea if many sites make exceptions for RAAC, and
it's really not much of an issue. The group carries very few image
postings, and I can't remember the last time one went over the size
limit, while every few months someone sends in a plain text submission
that breaks the limit.
Brian.
John David Galt
> But regardless, proponents who behave badly do *get* increased NO
> votes, and although it's out of character for me to be the one to
> threaten one, let alone for me to actually cast one, it's not
> especially odd given that I'm the particular news.groups regular whose
> statements were most consistently repudiated.
Don't take it personally. The proponent hasn't done this before.
FWIW, I would also have liked to see "the standard bans" included.
But I still plan to use the group. (And knowing the people on the
mailing list, I really doubt anyone will object to discussions of
non-SI variants of the metric system. If anyone does come back in
six months I predict it will be to create an advocacy group, or maybe
a moderated group if the spammers or kooks have shown up in force.)
Bill Aten
unmoderated group misc.metric-system
- n.a.n moderation team ]
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
- It is brief.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
END CHARTER.
HOW TO VOTE:
| Usenet Voting Ballot [MMS-75-2] (Do not remove this line!)
IMPORTANT VOTING PROCEDURE NOTES:
DISTRIBUTION:
comp.std.misc
de.comp.standards
rec.backcountry
misc.metric-system - Ack Bounce List
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Vote Ack email bounced, the email addresses and associated
ballots listed below are considered invalid and will not be counted in the
final result. Ballots must be submitted from a valid and verifyable email
address in order to be processed. The individuals listed below will need
to revote from a valid email address prior to the poll closing in order to
correct this problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chemgurl77.trash [at] hotmail.com chem
m.collado [at] aaron.ls.fi.upm.es Manuel Collado
--
Bill Aten, UVV <bi...@netagw.com>
Bill Aten
unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
[ Note: This document is multiposted in 3 copies because too many
large service providers implement crossposting limits and
would otherwise drop it.
- n.a.n moderation team ]
Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 25 Nov 2003.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about the
proposed group should be directed to the proponent.
Proponent: Markus Kuhn <Marku...@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Votetaker: Bill Aten <bi...@netagw.com>
There were 236 valid YES/NO votes submitted during the voting period. Each
proposed newsgroup, in order to pass, must have at least 2/3 YES votes and at
least 100 more YES than NO votes. The results are as follows:
misc.metric-system results - 236 valid (YES & NO) votes
Yes No : 2/3? >100? : Pass? : Group
---- ---- : ---- ----- : ----- : -------------------------------------------
211 25 : Yes Yes : Yes : misc.metric-system
6 abstaining votes and 3 invalid votes
The proposal passed.
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted. If no
serious and significant allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the newsgroup shortly
thereafter.
The remainder of the RESULT contains:
Newsgroups Line
Rationale
Charter
Final Voting Acknowledgements
NEWSGROUPS LINE:
misc.metric-system The International System of Units.
RATIONALE: misc.metric-system
- It is brief.
CHARTER: misc.metric-system
END CHARTER.
FINAL VOTING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
misc.metric-system - Final Voter List
NOTE: This is not [to be used as] a mailing list. The email addresses
are provided only to help verify the validity of the interest poll.
Voted YES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5y3uxtekgx [at] earthlink.net Paul Hirose
72027.3605 [at] compuserve.com Bob Bailin
alan.jamieson [at] ntlworld.com Alan Jamieson
alanh [at] unc.edu Alan Hoyle
aminggs [at] yahoo.co.uk Andrew Inggs
Andries.Brouwer [at] cwi.nl Andries Brouwer
anthony [at] atkielski.com Anthony Atkielski
b4r4n5k1 [at] yahoo.com Adam Baranski
baron_carter [at] bmc.com Baron Carter
bfrost [at] nyx.net Bonnell Frost
blaise.egan [at] btopenworld.com Blaise F Egan
bob [at] cave.org Robert Wilkins
boldyrev+nospam [at] cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru Ivan Boldyrev
bouvin [at] daimi.au.dk Niels Olof Bouvin
Brian.Inglis [at] SystematicSw.ab.ca Brian Inglis
buff [at] pobox.com William Denton
CarletonM [at] aol.com Carleton MacDonald
cdkaese [at] ntlworld.com Chris Kaese
celia.mesure [at] spritenote.co.uk Celia Mesure
ceri [at] submonkey.net Ceri Davies
chemgurl77 [at] hotmail.com Caroline Kelly
chrajohn [at] alumni.indiana.edu Chris Johnson
chris [at] kzim.com Christopher Robin Zimmerman
chris [at] lordsutch.com Chris Lawrence
chris [at] metric.org.uk Chris KEENAN
CirgreeSys [at] aol.com Timothy Moylan
coghlan [at] sympatico.ca Patrick Coghlan
craigholl [at] hotmail.com Craig Holl
croyle [at] gelemna.org Don Croyle
d3c930 [at] webmail.co.za Declan George
dalcorn [at] hoosierlink.net David K Alcorn
davep [at] davep.org Dave Pearson
Dave_English [at] mail2dave.com Dave English
david [at] king-usa.com David King
david [at] rossde.com David E. Ross
dbpg [at] telus.net David Gibson
dbreslau [at] ContinuumPhotonics.com David Breslau
de5 [at] sws5.ornl.gov Dave Sill
dips770 [at] yahoo.co.uk Dipika Tanna
don-aitken [at] clara.co.uk Don Aitken
dshatto [at] ucla.edu David Shatto
dviolini [at] adelphia.net Robert de Violini
dwolff [at] panix.com David Wolff
Ekkehard [at] Uthke.de Ekkehard Uthke
elizabeth.gallagher [at] rogers.com Elizabeth Gallagher
ellis [at] spinics.net Rick Ellis
erickhagstrom [at] hotmail.com Erick Hagstrom
erik+misc.metric-system [at] selwerd.nl Erik Warmelink
erwan [at] rail.eu.org Erwan David
esa.peuha [at] helsinki.fi Esa Peuha
fisal [at] vbi.vt.edu Fidel Salas
flo [at] uk.thalesgroup.com Paul Williams
franck.thales [at] wanadoo.fr Franck T.
frankmatthews [at] houston.rr.com Frank Matthews
fungus [at] OCF.Berkeley.EDU Hank Fung
gareth.rees [at] pobox.com Gareth Rees
gherbert [at] retro.com George William Herbert
gnygaard [at] nccray.com Gene Nygaard
goltz [at] mmert.org James P. Goltz
han.maenen [at] wanadoo.nl Han Maenen
harder [at] myrealbox.com Jesper Harder
hcrun [at] charter.net Dick Jackson
hebbard [at] mail.msen.com Bruce Hebbard
henks [at] cistron.nl Henk Schaer
herber [at] fnal.gov Randolph J. Herber
horlacher [at] belwue.de Ulli 'Framstag' Horlacher
howard.w.ludwig [at] lmco.com Howard W. LUDWIG
hughescck [at] citcom.net Carroll Hughes
ian.cowley [at] addenbrookes.nhs.uk Ian Cowley
ijackson [at] chiark.greenend.org.uk Ian Jackson
james.bursa [at] strcprstskrzkrk.co.uk James Bursa
JamesL [at] Lugoj.com James Logajan
jdg [at] diogenes.sacramento.ca.us John David Galt
jeff [at] inforama.co.uk Jeff Gross
jeffrey [at] carlyle.org Jeffrey Carlyle
jilvonen [at] ee.oulu.fi Jussi Ilvonen
jim.silverton [at] erols.com James Silverton
jimmc [at] nova.org Jim McCracken
jimmy-riddle [at] lineone.net Andrew Macpherson
jimrtex [at] pipeline.com Jim Riley
jjllxa16 [at] xs4all.nl J. J. Lodder
jmprice [at] calweb.com John M. Price, PhD
joe [at] jolomo.net Joe Morris
john.hyde [at] ntlworld.com John A Hyde
John.Jones [at] cec.eu.int John Michael Jones
john [at] tradoc.fr John Wilcock
Jon.Ericson [at] jpl.nasa.gov Jon Ericson
jonathan.miles [at] uk.pwc.com Hugh Jonathan Miles
jpc [at] suespammers.org J. Porter Clark
kai-vote-mms [at] khms.westfalen.de Kai Henningsen
kamlet [at] panix.com Art Kamlet
khaled [at] easy.com Khaled Choudhury
kilopascal [at] cox.net John P. Schweisthal
kilopond [at] bigpond.com Eric Burns
kubijens [at] minet.uni-jena.de Jens Kubieziel
laszlo [at] pop-mg.rnp.br Laszlo Pinto
lmend [at] ccny.cuny.edu Loren D. Mendelsohn
lsonderling [at] earthlink.net Lawence Sonderling
m.j.moseley [at] imperial.ac.uk Merrick Moseley
mail [at] larskasper.de Lars Kasper
mail [at] sebastian-brocks.de Sebastian Brocks
Markus.Kuhn [at] cl.cam.ac.uk Markus Kuhn
martin [at] vliet.demon.co.uk Martin Vlietstra
mattheww [at] chiark.greenend.org.uk Matthew Woodcraft
matthewzotter [at] earthlink.net Matthew Zotter
mavifibe [at] angelfire.com Marcus V F Be
max [at] alcyone.com Erik Max Francis
mdhixson [at] hiwaay.net Mark Hixson
mechtly [at] ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Eugene A. Mechtly
metricvij [at] hotmail.com Brij Bhushan Vij
metrikk [at] hotmail.com Krishna Kambhampaty
mgk920 [at] dataex.com Michael G. Koerner
michael.dahms [at] fh-flensburg.de Michael Dahms
michael.mauch [at] gmx.de Michael Mauch
michal [at] rosa.id.au Michal Rosa
mjonesmel [at] comcast.net Matthew D. Jones
morgan [at] head.cfa.harvard.edu Windsor Morgan
msaarniv [at] mail.student.oulu.fi Mikko Saarnivala
msh210 [at] math.wustl.edu Michael Hamm ("msh210")
mthalloran [at] aol.com Michael T. Halloran
naughtin [at] bigpond.net.au Pat Naughtin
ncooper [at] wahoo.sjsu.edu Noreen Cooper
ned [at] kilowatt.whoi.edu Ned Forrester
nehager [at] msi-sensing.com Nat Hager III
nejman [at] goteborg.bostream.se Asbjörn Nejman
news01+Steven.Murdoch [at] cl.cam.ac.uk Steven J. Murdoch
news1 [at] matthias-baake.de Matthias Baake
nfitz [at] sentex.net Nicholas Fitzpatrick
nhoffmann [at] despammed.com Norbert Hoffmann
Nicefella [at] tesco.net Rowland Dye
nikkit [at] web.de Kai Rode
oconnell [at] slr.orl.lmco.com Kevin B. O'Connell
odt [at] dtrx.de Olaf Dietrich
oraivio [at] mail.student.oulu.fi Ossi Raivio
pa [at] cdg.chalmers.se Per Andersson
palaste [at] cc.helsinki.fi Joona I Palaste
pan [at] syix.com Pan
patrick.f [at] netaccess.co.nz Patrick Fitzgerald
per-ove.persson3 [at] comhem.se Per Ove Persson
pete.forman [at] westerngeco.com Pete Forman
Peter-Lawrence.Montgomery [at] cwi.nl Peter Montgomery
Peter [at] Lairo.com Peter Lairo
phil [at] bathcity.org.uk Philip Andrews
phil [at] celeritycomm.com Phil Chernack
phil [at] durden.clara.co.uk Phil D
phil [at] mckerracher.org Phil McKerracher
philip.hall2 [at] ntlworld.com Philip S Hall
Piotr.Zielinski [at] cl.cam.ac.uk Piotr Zielinski
pk [at] TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Peter Koch
pm9000 [at] usa.net Mark Halsall
porjes [at] spamcop.net Peter Stephenson
ppnerk [at] yahoo.com Phred Pnerk
promotemetric [at] earthlink.net Ronald L. Stone
psmyth [at] gmx.net Peter Smyth
ptrusten [at] cox.net Paul Trusten
ressel [at] frontiernet.net Howard Ressel
riane21c [at] hotmail.com Riane Martin
richardl [at] zetnet.co.uk Richard Loebner
richgr [at] panix.com Rich Greenberg
richw [at] richw.org Rich Wales
rkim461 [at] ECY.WA.GOV Rich Kim
rlcarr [at] animato.arlington.ma.us Rich Carreiro
rlh [at] theworld.com Roger L Hale
rmcleod [at] pacificcoast.net Robert McLeod
rnews [at] river.com Richard Johnson
robert [at] chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk Robert Marshall
robin.paice [at] btconnect.com Robin Paice
Roddy.Urquhart [at] synopsys.com Roddy Urquhart
ronald.gallagher [at] rogers.com Ronald Gallagher
rphenry [at] cox.net Richard Henry
rps [at] rena.mat.uc.pt Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
rpyle [at] sciti.com Robert Pyle
sagittaria [at] softhome.net Sagittaria
sandmann [at] clio.rice.edu Charles Sandmann
sanschag [at] staff.uni-marburg.de Paul Sanschagrin
Sascha.Schimke [at] Student.Uni-Magdeburg.DE Sascha Schimke
sbfaulds [at] ihug.co.nz Stuart Brodie Faulds
sbrel [at] pcug.org.au Sandy Brelsford
sc1-news [at] roamer1.org Stanley Cline
sgmail [at] rogers.com Stephen Gallagher
shields [at] msrl.com Michael Shields
shrao [at] nyx.net Shrisha Rao
simon [at] darkmere.gen.nz Simon Lyall
sj.bond [at] onyxnet.co.uk shirley bond
skywatchbob [at] yahoo.com Robert Price
smlucas [at] flashmail.com Steven Lucas
sostaric [at] mszs.si DAVOR SOSTARIC
sparre [at] nbi.dk Jacob Sparre Andersen
srl32 [at] cam.ac.uk Stephen Lewis
steve-in-sf [at] sbcglobal.net Steve Zafft
steve [at] steve-and-pattie.com Steve MacGregor
t.wade [at] vms.eurokom.ie Tom Wade
terry [at] connected-systems.com Terry Simpson
thefatphil [at] yahoo.co.uk FatPhil
thierry [at] pompo.net Thierry Thomas
thk [at] kms.dk Thomas Knudsen
thor [at] anta.net Thor Kottelin
toivo [at] ucs.uwa.edu.au Toivo Pedaste
tomp [at] st.net.au Tom Perrett
trh [at] xs4all.nl Tom Hageman
tuhing [at] lexmediadigital.ph Tom W. Uhing
twid [at] bibulus.org Thomas Widmann
van.ette [at] inter.nl.net Robert-Jan van Ette
vote-misc.metric-system [at] newton.digitalspace.net Philip Newton
Wbauer03 [at] aol.com William Bauer
wessels7 [at] xs4all.nl Rik Wessels
wfp [at] wfpconsulting.com Bill Potts
willner [at] cfa.harvard.edu Steve Willner
worstall [at] btopenworld.com Michael V Worstall
zimnyzenon [at] interia.pl Zenobiusz Zimny
zvr [at] pobox.com Alexios Zavras
Voted NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aaron [at] aaroncity.com Aaron O'Donnell
billv1939 [at] netscape.net Bill Vajk
brougham5 [at] yahoo.com E. Brougham
cfsen [at] hotmail.com Sen Chao Fang
clzeni [at] mindspring.com clzeni
dc [at] panix.com David W. Crawford
devin [at] thecabal.org Devin L. Ganger
dougbob [at] charter.net Bob Douglas
eaking [at] ulape.org.uk Edward King
fwbrown [at] bellsouth.net Wayne Brown
gaillard [at] panix.com Ed Gaillard
gprrspw [at] mindspring.com G.P. Ryan
graham.drabble [at] lineone.net Graham Drabble
johnl [at] iecc.com John Levine
josephb [at] panix.com Joe Bernstein
miliff [at] qnet.com Mary Shafer
msb [at] vex.net Mark Brader
naddy [at] mips.inka.de Christian Weisgerber
nafig_blin [at] hotmail.com Eduard Petrov
patrick [at] texier.info Patrick Texier
rick [at] bcm.tmc.edu Richard Miller
ronnirubin [at] sprintmail.com Arthur Rubin
ru.igarashi [at] usask.ca ru igarashi
stainles [at] realtime.net Dwight Brown
wiz [at] verinet.com Wiz
Voted ABSTAIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aahz [at] pobox.com Aahz
hkt79 [at] earthlink.net Henrietta K Thomas
michael_eaton [at] hotmail.com Michael Eaton
mmontcha [at] OregonVOS.net Matthew Montchalin
tempdog [at] erols.com A [Temporary] Dog
yan [at] storm.ca Yves Bellefeuille
Invalid Votes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chemgurl77.trash [at] hotmail.com chem
! Ack bounced: No such user
m.collado [at] aaron.ls.fi.upm.es Manuel Collado
! Ack bounced: No such user
medawar [at] panix.com
! No name given
Joe Bernstein
> Voted YES
> gnygaard [at] nccray.com Gene Nygaard
> Voted NO
> josephb [at] panix.com Joe Bernstein
Two quick notes:
I'm amused to see that the person who did more than anyone else to
convince me to vote NO did not himself do the same.
Separately, I'll have to look into why my vote came from that address,
which I normally prefer not to publish. It is already heavily spammed,
between the alpha-spams and the prior holder of the login, so it isn't
going to make a noticeable difference to me (and isn't going to
contribute to recent requests for statistics); but obviously I need to
fuss with my software. At this time, one of my spam-detection tools
is a To: line with anything *other* than <j...@sfbooks.com> in it, so
I do *not* encourage people to file this as an alternative address
for me.
Finally. I would like to make it clear that my NO vote was not against
the group in principle, and only partly against this implementation of
it. I originally considered voting NO because I was mad at the
proponent; later I was irked that a charter, essentially none of which I
found satisfactory, was being brushed off as unimportant by my fellow
readers of news.groups. It appears that I will not be able to come to
any understanding on this latter point with said fellow readers, but
regardless,
I wish y'all well in the new newsgroup, and congratulations. May my
concerns prove unfounded.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <10698092...@isc.org>, Bill Aten <bi...@netagw.com> wrote:
>>
>> josephb [at] panix.com Joe Bernstein
>
>which I normally prefer not to publish. It is already heavily spammed,
>between the alpha-spams and the prior holder of the login, so it isn't
>going to make a noticeable difference to me (and isn't going to
>contribute to recent requests for statistics); but obviously I need to
>fuss with my software. At this time, one of my spam-detection tools
>is a To: line with anything *other* than <j...@sfbooks.com> in it, so
>I do *not* encourage people to file this as an alternative address
>for me.
According to my last message from you, you're using mutt; set
EMAIL=<whatever e-mail address you want>
I'm suspecting, though, that you replied from your newsreader rather
than your mailer.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2003 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Dave Barry sez: do not call the American Teleservices Association
(telemarketing lobby group) at 317-816-9336. That would be rude.
Sam Wormley
to hang out at/in.
Gene Nygaard
<j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>In article <10698092...@isc.org>, Bill Aten <bi...@netagw.com> wrote:
>
>> Voted YES
>
>> gnygaard [at] nccray.com Gene Nygaard
>
>> Voted NO
>
>> josephb [at] panix.com Joe Bernstein
>
>Two quick notes:
>
>I'm amused to see that the person who did more than anyone else to
>convince me to vote NO did not himself do the same.
It took me a long time to make up my mind. I was indeed pissed off at
the way Markus Kuhn handled that so badly. It could have been fixed
as a technical clarification not necessitating a new RFD.
But then, I figured I've maybe looked up one or two charters in the
years I've been on Usenet (and I don't even remember how I found
them), and that's about two more than 99.99% of the other posters have
done.
Besides, after all we do still have the proponents interpretation of
the charter, flaky as it is.
>Finally. I would like to make it clear that my NO vote was not against
>the group in principle, and only partly against this implementation of
>it. I originally considered voting NO because I was mad at the
>proponent; later I was irked that a charter, essentially none of which I
>found satisfactory, was being brushed off as unimportant by my fellow
>readers of news.groups. It appears that I will not be able to come to
>any understanding on this latter point with said fellow readers, but
>regardless,
>
>I wish y'all well in the new newsgroup, and congratulations. May my
>concerns prove unfounded.
>
>Joe Bernstein
I hope so too.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Markus Kuhn
volunteer votetaker for the speedy processing!
I know that some people here would have preferred a slightly
rewritten charter, others wanted a much more detailed one.
I hope I have not disappointed too many by going for one of
the shortest and simplest options that was proposed.
Looking back at the discussion, I believe that we all were
ultimately in strong agreement on what the group is about
and how it should be used.
I plan to contribute regularly to the new group, I may end up
volunteering to maintain some periodic postings (FAQ, etc.), and
I will certainly be available to help in interpreting the spirit
of the charter and the discussion leading to it, should the need
to do so really ever arise.
Markus
(the happy proponent)
Crimefighter
news:10698092...@isc.org...
> RESULT
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
> ---- ---- : ---- ----- : -----
: -------------------------------------------
> 211 25 : Yes Yes : Yes : misc.metric-system
> 6 abstaining votes and 3 invalid votes
Great! Been a long time coming for this proposal.
--
Crimefighter -- smlucas-=<([a])>=-flashmail.com
Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD -- http://promisedland.betterbox.net
The COMPLETE Abermud List -- http://abermud.tripod.com
STOP DEADLY EMAIL VIRUS SPAM! GET A DEADSPAM.COM ADDRESS!
Phil McKerracher
"Crimefighter" <crimef...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:bqe2ke$210ife$1...@ID-119884.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Bill Aten" <bi...@netagw.com> wrote in message
> Great! Been a long time coming for this proposal.
Unfortunately Telewest (Blueyonder) subscribers in the UK won't be seeing it
for a while longer:
"Due to storage restrictions on the current news platform, we are unable to
add any new groups to our servers at this time."
:-(
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Sebastian Brocks
> "Due to storage restrictions on the current news platform, we are unable
> to add any new groups to our servers at this time."
>
Stupid ISP. Text groups take like a millionth of the hard disk storage
that binary groups occupy.
--
"The entire point of using a PC is to click with the mouse."
-javajeff in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Phil McKerracher
> RESULT
> unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
> There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted. If no
> serious and significant allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the
> moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the newsgroup shortly
> thereafter...
Any news on this? I can't see the new group on Google Groups or my ISP's newsserver.
Graham Drabble
news:e5d48754.03121...@posting.google.com:
> bi...@netagw.com (Bill Aten) wrote in message
> news:<10698092...@isc.org>...
>> RESULT
>> unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
> Any news on this? I can't see the new group on Google Groups or my
> ISP's newsserver.
Newgroup messages were sent out on 1st, 2nd and 8th December. Try
mailing ne...@your.isp and requesting it.
--
Graham Drabble
Want help with an RFD?
Try the RFDMaker: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sjoh1646/rfd/
Rob Kelk
> On 13 Dec 2003 ph...@mckerracher.org (Phil McKerracher) wrote in
> news:e5d48754.03121...@posting.google.com:
>
>>bi...@netagw.com (Bill Aten) wrote in message
>>news:<10698092...@isc.org>...
>>
>>>RESULT
>>> unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
>>
>>Any news on this? I can't see the new group on Google Groups or my
>>ISP's newsserver.
>
> Newgroup messages were sent out on 1st, 2nd and 8th December. Try
> mailing ne...@your.isp and requesting it.
I never saw any of them at my site. Considering that Google doesn't
have the group either, could there be a breakdown in propogation of
newgroup messages somewhere?
--
Rob Kelk
Personal address: robkelk -at- jksrv -dot- com
Any opinions here are mine, not the Government's.
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
Phil McKerracher
"Rob Kelk" <rob...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:brkq4n$je...@shark.pwgsc.gc.ca...
> Graham Drabble <graham....@lineone.net> wrote:
> > On 13 Dec 2003 ph...@mckerracher.org (Phil McKerracher) wrote in
> > news:e5d48754.03121...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >>bi...@netagw.com (Bill Aten) wrote in message
> >>news:<10698092...@isc.org>...
> >>
> >>>RESULT
> >>> unmoderated group misc.metric-system passes 211:25
> >>
> >>Any news on this? I can't see the new group on Google Groups or my
> >>ISP's newsserver.
> >
> > Newgroup messages were sent out on 1st, 2nd and 8th December. Try
> > mailing ne...@your.isp and requesting it.
>
> I never saw any of them at my site. Considering that Google doesn't
> have the group either, could there be a breakdown in propogation of
> newgroup messages somewhere?
Actually, I found it on Google. A search for "metric" doesn't find it, but
if you click down the tree to
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=misc.metric-system
it's there.
--
Phil McKerracher
www.mckerracher.org
Russ Allbery
> I never saw any of them at my site. Considering that Google doesn't
> have the group either, could there be a breakdown in propogation of
> newgroup messages somewhere?
Google adds groups based on volume and ignores control messages, so it
always takes a little while for the group to show up there. Usually you
can search for it before you can find it in the group list.
Uni
> Rob Kelk <rob...@deadspam.com> writes:
>
>
>>I never saw any of them at my site. Considering that Google doesn't
>>have the group either, could there be a breakdown in propogation of
>>newgroup messages somewhere?
>
>
> Google adds groups based on volume and ignores control messages,
That's the way the entire usenet should be run. Too many Big 8 groups
are now defunct.
Uni
Brian Palmer
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >>I never saw any of them at my site. Considering that Google doesn't
> >>have the group either, could there be a breakdown in propogation of
> >>newgroup messages somewhere?
> > Google adds groups based on volume and ignores control messages,
>
>
>
> That's the way the entire usenet should be run. Too many Big 8 groups
> are now defunct.
Hmm. So no new newsgroup could ever be created? Is that a bug or a feature?
--
I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard.
Russ Allbery
> That's the way the entire usenet should be run. Too many Big 8 groups
> are now defunct.
Why is an empty newsgroup a bad thing? We have this discussion from time
to time, and unless there's some sort of confusion with another active
group, I don't see much argument in favor of removing an unmoderated group
other than a sense of cleanliness.
Empty moderated groups can be frustrating and confusing for people and we
don't have a good idea of how many people are trying to use them, so they
feel different to me.
Bill Cole
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Uni <no.e...@no.email.invalid> writes:
>
> > That's the way the entire usenet should be run. Too many Big 8 groups
> > are now defunct.
>
> Why is an empty newsgroup a bad thing? We have this discussion from time
> to time, and unless there's some sort of confusion with another active
> group, I don't see much argument in favor of removing an unmoderated group
> other than a sense of cleanliness.
The reasons for that 'sense of cleanliness' can be quite concrete. It
has been a while since I had my hands in a big-feed news server with
real paying users, but the last 2 projects I had on such systems
included doing the research and making the judgments to reduce active
files from almost 100k groups to under 5k. The reason was simply that
users couldn't find useful/interesting groups and were scared away from
news altogether by the shear scale of the list. In other cases users
would post to a 'ghost town' group, get no response but a click up in
their email spam rate, and be soured on the whole idea of Usenet. Empty
groups should go away so that users, particularly novices, don't get the
impression that Usenet is one big ghost town.
Admittedly this is a far larger problem in alt than it is the Big 8, and
the way most admins run news servers these days, fixing it is something
that can only have spotty local impact, but shedding the groups that
haven't had a non-spam thread in years would be a necessary first step
to get more sites to clean up their active files and make news more
accessible.
> Empty moderated groups can be frustrating and confusing for people and we
> don't have a good idea of how many people are trying to use them, so they
> feel different to me.
I'm not sure that I see the difference in the frustration...
--
Now where did I hide that website...