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



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>

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------


These results have been posted to:

- --------------------------------------------------------------------


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.


     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.


     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.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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

  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.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


Amend the Guidelines for Group Creation as follows:

Add the following new paragraph after paragraph 1, and renumber

 "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

  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, 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."


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:


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.

Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv


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