16 Jun 2000: Amend Guidelines: Quick Creation
From: alan@whirlnet.co.uk (Alan Ford)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:31:12 GMT
Subject: RESULTS: Amend Guidelines - Template Creation PASSES with Option 1
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
Amend Guidelines: Template Creation PASSES with Option 1
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting began Thursday 18 May 2000
Voting closed Friday 9 June 2000 23:59:59 BST
Proponent: Philip Powell <philip@blencathra.demon.co.uk>
Primary Votetaker: Alan Ford <alan@whirlnet.co.uk>
Secondary Votetaker: Richard Ashton <r.ashton@ukvoting.org.uk>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRIBUTION
These results have been posted to:
uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.net.news.management
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
RESULTS COUNTING
The three options were:
1) Amend Guidelines with Option 1 (YES: OPTION 1)
2) Amend Guidelines with Option 2 (YES: OPTION 2)
3) Status Quo (SQ) no new newsgroup
4) Re Open Discussion (ROD) discussion reopens
STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo:
Option 1 preferred to SQ by 30 : 8
Option 2 preferred to SQ by 30 : 7
Re-Open Discussion preferred to SQ by 27 : 8
All options beat status quo by at least 12 votes and so continue...
STAGE TWO - Remaining options compared with each other
Option 1 is preferred to Option 2 by 19 : 15
Option 1 is preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 29 : 9
Option 2 is preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 30 : 7
"YES: Option 1" was preferred to all the other options, and had a majority
of more than twelve over the Status Quo, therefore the group is created
with the charter as given below.
There were a total of 38 votes.
There will be a five day discussion period after these results have
been posted before the group is created to allow for any allegations
of irregularities to be raised.
The Rationale, Summary of Discussion, Proposal, and Charter follow
the main results for informational purposes.
RAW PREFERENCES GRID
OP1 OP2 SQ ROD
OP1 [n/a] [ 19] [ 30] [ 29]
OP2 [ 15] [n/a] [ 30] [ 30]
SQ [ 8] [ 7] [n/a] [ 8]
ROD [ 9] [ 7] [ 27] [n/a]
In this grid, each number represents the number of votes which were cast
that preferred the option named in the number's row to the option
appropriate to the number's column. For instance, 30 votes preferred
Option 1 to SQ while 7 votes preferred Re-Opening the Discussion to
Option 2.
OPPOSITE COMPARISONS GRID
OP1 OP2 SQ ROD
OP1 [n/a] [ 4] [ 22] [ 20] winner
OP2 [ -4] [n/a] [ 23] [ 23]
SQ [-22] [-23] [n/a] [-19]
ROD [-20] [-23] [ 19] [n/a]
In this grid, each number represents the number of votes which were cast
that preferred the option named in the number's row to the option
appropriate to the number's column less the number of votes which were
cast that preferred the option named in the number's column to the option
appropriate to the number's row.
As shown by all the numbers in its row in the lower grid being positive,
Option 1 was preferred to all other options and hence wins the ballot.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RESULTS IN FULL
Total Votes: 38
Re-open discussion-----------------------------------------------------------+
Status quo----------------------------------------------------------------+ |
Yes: Option 2----------------------------------------------------------+ | |
Yes: Option 1-------------------------------------------------------+ | | |
| | | |
Alex D Baxter alex-news@oenone@demon@OC@KU 4 3 2 1
Alex Dawson alex@dawson@uea@ac@KU 4 3 1 2
Alex Holden votes@alexh@clara@OC@KU 1 2 3 4
Andrew Hartley andrew@eastupham@freeserve@OC@KU 1 4 3 2
Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing@demon@OC@KU 1 1 3 2
Big Al al@mcwatterss@freeserve@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Charles Lindsey chl@clw@cs@man@ac@KU 1 3 2 2
Dave Root daveroot@btinternet@OCm 2 1 4 3
David Mahon dmahon@amigo@OC@KU 4 1 3 2
Graham Drabble graham@drabble@lineone@TEN 3 1 4 2
Guy Morgan Guy@first-light-services@OC@KU 2 1 - -
Ian Chard ichard@cadence@OCm 1 2 4 3
James Coupe james@zephyr@GRO@KU 1 2 4 3
James Farrar flynny@redhotant@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Jezza jezza@hotwells@freeserve@OC@KU 2 1 4 3
Jilli jilli@gmt@prestel@OC@KU 4 1 3 2
John Line jml4@cus@cam@ac@KU 1 2 4 3
Jon Thomson jon@thomson2273@freeserve@OC@KU 3 3 1 2
Lyn David Thomas lyn@cibwr@freeserve@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Marcus Houlden qc-vote@nukesoft@OC@KU 2 1 4 3
Mark Goodge mark@good-stuff@OC@KU 2 1 4 3
Mark Tyndall mrt102@york@ac@KU 1 2 3 4
Mike Fleming mike@tauzero@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Molly Mockford molly@mockfords@clara@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Nick Regan nick@nregan@OC@KU 2 1 4 3
Paul Paul@xebon@clara@OC@KU 1 1 2 3
Peter Munn pmunnsub@pearce-neptune@demon@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Philip Powell philip@blencathra@demon@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Richard Clayton richard@turnpike@OCm - - 1 2
Richard Kettlewell rjk+uk-qcreate-vote@sfere@greenend@GRO@KU 3 4 1 2
Steve Wright steve@wrightnet@demon@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Stuart O'Donnell spod@venicones@demon@OC@KU 2 1 4 3
The NewsBrowser ak_soto@yahoo@OC@KU 4 1 3 2
Thomas Lee tfl@psp@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
Tim Sharrock tjsharrock@iee@GRO 2 1 4 3
Tim Walls tim@snowgoons@fsnet@OC@KU 2 1 3 4
Tony Towers tony@cats@tele2@OC@KU 1 - - -
Tony tony@tagman@demon@OC@KU 1 2 4 3
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTETAKER'S COMMENTS:
The smallish turnout for this vote quite surprised me, but the result
seems fairly conclusive.
Voting ran smoothly and almost everyone filled in their ballots
correctly first time.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPONENT'S RATIONALE:
It is an oft repeated complaint that creation of newsgroups is "too
difficult", and further that the process becomes bogged down in
circular arguments about the same thing time upon time.
There can be no logic in re-hashing such arguments time and again,
and it is desirable that the group creation process should include
such shortcuts as can reasonably be provided for.
One area where such shortcuts may prove expedient is in the case of
groups where there is a clearly identifiable "set" of groups which
might at some point in the future populate the hierarchy.
An example would be uk.sport.football.clubs.*.
Whilst one solution might be to create all possible groups from the
outset, this approach leads to unused groups attracting spam, which
may well be unusable by the time people arrive wanting to use them,
and does not inspire confidence in the management of the hierarchy
amongst newsadmins.
This proposal seeks to establish a new procedure. A new type of RFD
will be introduced to create group templates (to be known as a group
template RFD). This RFD will specify the generic charter for groups
within the set and specify the extent of set (e.g. All Premiership
and Division 1 clubs)
Once a template RFD has passed, all groups within the set are deemed
to be approved for creation, and that creation will occur upon
receipt [and verification] by control of a request from 12
individuals for that group [subject to the outome of any objections
raised].
If the proposal passes, group template RFDs will be submitted
immediately for uk.sport.football.clubs.<all league clubs and
uk.local.<county or city - the full extent of the set will be
decided during the RFD or via options in the CFV.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPONENT'S SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
There were no posts indicating opposition to the principle of creating
a "Quick Creation Template" although concern was voiced that support
should be shown through postings in uk.net.news.config rather than
through email to Control. Consequently, an option has been included to
allow this (Option 2). Such other changes that were suggested have
been incorporated.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVED PROPOSAL (OPTION 1):
Amend the Guidelines for Group Creation as follows:
Add the following new paragraph after paragraph 1, and renumber
accordingly:
"Where it is desired to provide for a large number of newsgroups to
be created as and when demand emerges, all sharing a common charter,
an RFD for a "group template" may be submitted, in the same form as
an RFD, but containing also the scope of subjects for which it shall
be available, and a standard charter and newsgroups line applicable
to them all (with placeholders for those words specific to each
subject). It may further specify a group or groups to which all
future notices of quick creations must be crossposted.
The scope of subjects shall be clear and finite, it must be possible
to create a definitive list of potential groups (although it is not
required that the proponent provides such a list). The scope shall
give clear instructions as to the formation of group names under the
template, including any flexibility (to be exercised at the
discretion of the committee) that is allowed in naming.
A group template RFD may also specify a single group which will be
created immediately the proposal passes, without need of a quick
creation request."
Add the following new paragraph after paragraph 4 (now 5), and
renumber accordingly:
"Where a group template exists, a group may be created by the 'Quick
Creation' method, without any RFD (with formal Charter) being
posted.
A 'Quick Creation' request may be made by:
A request for Control to create a group using the template
shall contain the names and valid email addresses of the
proponent and at least 11 (maximum 20) supporters. If Control
(as advised by the Committee) is satisfied that the proposed
group lies within the scope of the template, he shall announce
in the newsgroups specified in the template that if a minimum
of 11 of the provided list of supporters respond as indicated
below then, in the absence of valid objections, the
group shall be created on a date not less than 10 days
thereafter. Control's announcement shall contain the
names/valid email addresses of the proponent and supporters.
Control shall email each supporter provided by the
proponent informing them that they must email a reply within
10 days to acknowledge that they support the request and that
the request will fail if fewer than 11 respond positively.
If the original request is rejected, or fewer than 11 of the listed
supporters (by Option 1) respond positively to Control or there
are fewer than 11 supporting posts (by Option 2) in
uk.net.news.config, then Control shall announce this to the same
groups as received the original posting.
If, at the end of the 10 day period, the minimum level of support
has been achieved then Control shall post to the same groups that
the proposed group shall be created in 5 days unless there are any
objections.
Objections, which must be emailed to control@usenet.org.uk, to quick
creation will only be considered on the grounds that:
1) the proposed group lies outside the scope of the template;
2) the name is not in accordance with the template;
3) the list of supporters contains some irregularity;
4) (under Option 2) that there is some doubt about the
validity of one or more of the supporting posts, which if
disregarded would bring the number of supporters below 11.
The rule specifying the number of objections that automatically
prevent a fast track shall not apply to any group application by the
'Quick Creation' method.
In the event that a 'Quick Creation' request is rejected by the
committee, expires through lack of support or is overturned
following an objection, a similar proposal may be submitted for
discussion by the normal RFD process without incurring a 3 month
delay. However, a failed or expired quick creation request may not
be re-submitted as a quick creation request within 90 days."
END APPROVED PROPOSAL
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on behalf of
the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.
The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are posted
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:
ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting
The UKVoting web pages can be found at http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted
to uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOUoB32OfGXkh8vHZAQGVswP+PxvHcbg/ZrrZC0ODe/6+B18nK/arfQXd
080hZ/tomXkZKQaAg7ecpuyQUeqRtYYK/GLcMxJYHypcXABitBepv+00W4DcKFD4
2y7OmpaIcvK6jwQqVpzuu1IH7KK9haFGxf6+SSW1HCtGqwDDJiIsadRWvmvoNj7r
+BnQK+NMbI8=
=AVl+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Alan Ford <alan@whirlnet.co.uk> <a.ford@ukvoting.org.uk>
UKVoting Votetaker
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
