California UseNet Project - Posted Opinions
Ideas toward a ca.* newsgroup creation process
The following is an opinion that was posted in ca.news.group.
Path: thunder.sbay.org!ikluft
From: ikluft@thunder.sbay.org (Ian Kluft)
Subject: Ideas toward a ca.* newsgroup creation process
Distribution: ca
Message-ID: <DwxqFI.A8L@thunder.sbay.org>
Organization: sbay.org - South Bay/Silicon Valley Community Network
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 05:11:41 GMT
The California UseNet Project plan calls for processes to be developed
on the following:
* creation, removal and modification of newsgroups,
* modification of newsgroup charters,
* installation and removal of moderators (moderated newsgroups only),
* authority and limitations on enforcement of charters and
* amendment of the procedures themselves.
This article only addresses newsgroup creation procedures. Each of
the processes will be discussed in ca.news.group, though hopefully not
all at once.
This is the result of several years of exposure to the UseNet newsgroup
creation process, many thoughts about how to improve it, and several nights
this week writing it up.
Notes for ca.* newsgroup creation
---------------------------------
To avoid confusion with the Big-8 newsgroups' process, the terms "RFD"
and "CFV" should not be used at all in this process. Instead, I would
suggest referring to them simply as a proposal and a vote for now.
1) My own idea is that some proposals are not controversial and should not
need to bog down volunteers for long drawn-out processes. When a proposal
appears to have no opposition, such as if no statement of opposition is
submitted, the process needs to have a way to "fast track" it to creation,
without a vote.
2) Heeding complaints of past newsgroup opponents, in order for a proposal
to be really neutral there needs to be an opportunity for each side to
present its case equally in officially-posted articles. Without this,
there is no incentive for opponents to act civilized. (Some still won't
because this is UseNet but let's not encourage uncivilized behavior.)
3) Borrowing a few ideas from Peter DaSilva, several intertwined issues
need to be asked as separate questions:
a) Question: Setting aside the newsgroup name, are you interested in the
topic and would you participate in a newsgroup about it?
Purpose: this takes the role of an interest poll. For this part, a
minimum number of people should be required to pass. But this is
only to measure potential participation - there is no provision to
state opposition on this part.
b) Question: Is this an appropriate topic for discussion on UseNet?
Purpose: this is where the yes and no votes come in. This might
require either a simple (50%) majority or an absolute (2/3) majority
of yes votes to pass.
c) Question: What should the name of the newsgroup for this topic be?
Purpose: If more than one choice is available this should probably
use a "Single Transferable Vote" method, where voters select their
first, second, etc choices and their votes are transferred to their
next ones as each highest remaining choice is eliminated.
I've thought about this and came up with the following notes about a
possible voting process. This is up for discussion and can be changed.
Possible Outline for a Voting Process
-------------------------------------
1) To begin the process, a proponent would post a "Proposal" article and
suggest one or more possible newsgroup names. [We should require
the proponents to post notices to possibly-affected newsgroups within
a certain number of days, otherwise the proposal dies.]
2) Upon posting of the proposal, a 14-day discussion period commences in
which the following occur:
a) Newsgroup charters must be written.
b) The proponents must find the minimum number of people interested in
the newsgroup. This could use a number like 50, or "one person per
million in California's population" (currently 33), or something
based on the traffic level in the ca.* newsgroups.
b) Proponents and opponents are given a chance to decide among themselves
on statements in support and against the proposal.
c) Each proposed newsgroup name may have their own sets of proponents and
opponents submit statements in favor and against them.
d) If it is not clear during the discussion who will be submitting the
statements for or against the topic and for or against each newsgroup
name, the newsgroup coordinators may request that all such sides pick
one person to do so. If they fail to pick one, the coordinators may
decide whether to consider it a failure to submit a proposal. Or
they may choose from whom they will accept an official statement if
some parties appear to be attempting to cause interference with the
process.
In each case, there may only one statement in favor and one statement
against so the proponents and opponents must work together on a single
text to officially submit for the process.
3) At the end of the 14-day discussion period, the newsgroup coordinators
will evaluate the submitted official statements according to the
following criteria, in the order listed:
a) If proponents have failed to find the minimum number of people
interested in the topic, the entire proposal fails and may not
be re-proposed for 90 days.
b) If proponents have not submitted an official statement in favor of
the proposal, the entire proposal fails and may not be re-proposed
for 90 days.
c) If opponents have not submitted an official statement against the
proposal, the proposal is "fast tracked" on the question of whether
it is an appropriate topic and the requirement for a vote on this
question is waived.
d) For each newsgroup name proposed, if proponents for that name have
failed to provide a statement in favor of it, that name is dropped
from consideration.
e) If no newsgroup names remain under consideration, the entire proposal
fails and may not be re-proposed for 90 days.
f) For each newsgroup name proposed, if opponents for that name have
failed to provide a statement against it, that name becomes eligible
to be voted on. There will be a note on official articles about the
proposal indicating, "No statement was submitted against this name,"
in place of the statement against it.
g) If only one newsgroup name was submitted and no statement was
submitted in opposition to it, the proposal is "fast tracked" on
the question of the newsgroup name and the requirement for a vote
on this question is waived.
h) If the proponents found at least the minimum number of people interested
and the proposal is "fast tracked" on both questions of appropriate
topic and newsgroup name, the proposal is declared "non-controversial"
and passes without a vote. The creation process continues as if a
vote had been held and passed. [The possibility of achieving this
should encourage proponents to be more diplomatic!]
i) Otherwise, the proposal moves on to a voting phase.
4) At the beginning of the voting phase, the coordinators will appoint
one or more neutral vote-takers. If both questions of appropriate topic
and newsgroup name are being voted on, the coordinators have the
following options
1) The votes may be held concurrently or the vote for appropriate topic
may be held before the vote for the newsgroup name.
2) The two votes may have different vote-takers if volunteers are
available.
5) Voting is handled by a neutral vote-taker who is neither a proponent nor
opponent of any side of the issue. Anyone acting in the role of newsgroup
coordinators regarding a proposal may not take the role of vote-taker for
that proposal. Voting is done by e-mail using only ballots prepared by
the vote-taker. The procedure must make it equally easy and equally
difficult to vote for any option on the ballot. Each voting period
lasts 14 days from the time the voting announcement is posted.
a) Voting on the question of appropriate topic is by a (1/2 or 2/3)
majority. There must also be at least as many votes for the proposal
as were initially required in the interest poll.
b) Voting for a question of newsgroup name uses a single-transferable
vote (STV) method to make a selection based on voters' prioritized
preferences of the names.
6) If the newsgroup passes on questions of appropriate topic and
a newsgroup name is selected, the proposal passes under the name
of the selected newsgroup. After posting the full results, if there
are no serious allegations of irregularities after a five-day audit
period, the newsgroup coordinators will create the newsgroup.
--
Ian Kluft KO6YQ PP-ASEL http://www.kluft.com/~ikluft/ sbay.org coordinator
ikluft@thunder.sbay.org (home) ikluft@cisco.com (work) San Jose, CA
Back to California UseNet Project Announcements Page