19 Apr 1997: Changes to "Guidelines for Group Creation for uk.*"
From: Malcolm Mladenovic <voting@mort.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:02:32 GMT
Subject: Changes to The Guidelines
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.announce
RESULT
Clarification of RFD posting rules PASSES 38:0
Regulation of Binaries PASSES 37:2
Naming Conventions PASSES 36:2
Fast Track PASSES 31:6
Rationalise language PASSES 33:1
Voting Closed: 23:59:59 GMT, Friday 18th April 1997
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UK-VOTING.
UK-VOTING is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on CFV's
in the uk hierarchy. The rules under which this vote was 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. Further
information on UK-VOTING can be found at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk
For voting questions only contact
voting@mort.demon.co.uk (Malcolm Maldenovic)
For questions about the proposals contact
david.mayall@ukonline.co.uk (Dave Mayall)
DISTRIBUTION:
These results have been posted to the following newsgroups:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config
========================================================================
PROPOSAL 1 - Clarification of RFD posting rules
Rationale:
There has been some recent dispute as to the precise meaning of the
current text of the first 2 paragraphs of point 1 this amendment seeks
to clarify the wording without changing the meaning
Reword paras 1 & 2 of item 1 as follows:
1) A request for discussion (RFD) on the creation of a new newsgroup
shall be mailed to control@usenet.org.uk (as moderator of
uk.net.news.announce).
Control will cross post the RFD to uk.net.news.announce,
uk.net.news.config and any other groups or mailing lists related to
the proposed topic or likely to be affected. The groups to be cross
posted into should be those requested by the proponent. The proponent
may also indicate which groups the Followups should be set to. Control
may, at his discretion, add additional groups to these lists (or remove
groups where such cross posting is beyond the technical capabilities
of the news software). Uk.net.news.config shall be included in both
the original cross posting and followups. Only postings which are cross
posted to uk.net.news.config will be considered part of the definitive
discussion.
========================================================================
PROPOSAL 2 - Regulation of Binaries
Rationale:
Several recent RFDs have attempted to allow binaries, although all
subsequently withdrew that part of the proposal in the face of
opposition. A great deal of effort would be saved if either binaries
were prohibited, or were restricted to a uk.binaries.* hierarchy. This
proposal would take the latter course.
Reword the final paragraph of item 1 as follows,
(Splitting into 2 Paragraphs):
The Charter shall make clear what the topic of discussion within the
group is to be (useful if arguments about what is "on-topic" should
arise later on). It is also advisable for the Charter to indicate whether
or not advertisements are welcome within the group, and if so of what
sort. The same applies to the admissability of job adverts, etc.
Binaries are allowed in uk.* only in hierarchies explicitly created
for binary posts, and having a hierarchy charter stating this. In all
other hierarchies the group charter should state that binaries are not
permitted. If any uk.* hierarchy or group whose charter does not mention
binaries, the assumption shall be that binaries are forbidden.
The One-line Summary will eventually go into the "newsgroups" file which
many newsreaders make available to users as a quick guide to the intent
of each newsgroup. As regards group Names, reference should be made to
the document "Guidelines on uk.* Newsgroup Names" which is posted
periodically to uk.net.news.announce.
========================================================================
PROPOSAL 3 - Naming Conventions
Rationale:
Whilst reference is made to the FAQ on news.announce.newusers, these
are somewhat general, and it would be helpful to define more explicitly
what is and is not allowed in uk.*
Reword item 2 as follows:
2) If the RFD is in the correct form, and if the name of the proposed
group falls within the normal accepted practice for the uk.* hierarchy
(as detailed in "Guidelines on uk.* Newsgroup Names")
control@usenet.org.uk (as moderator of uk.net.news.announce) will post
it. Otherwise, he will refer it to the Committee for resolution (which
may involve negotiation with the original proposer). A proposer who
needs help in choosing a name, or is looking for any other guidance
in the creation procedure, may send email to committee@usenet.org.uk
before issuing his RFD.
========================================================================
PROPOSAL 4 - Fast Track
Rationale:
There is an inconsistency, in that elsewhere it is mentioned that 4
objectors are required to prevent a fast track to changes to these rules.
The rules at present seem to allow a single objector to prevent a fast
track, this proposal would implement the 4 objectors rule for all RFDs.
Reword the first paragraph of Item 4 as follows:
4) If, by the end of the initial discussion period, a consensus has been
reached and the proposal appears to be straightforward and
non-controversial, the proposer may, within 40 days of the original
publication of the most recent RFD ask control@usenet.org.uk to create
the group by the "fast-track" method. If Control (as advised by the
Committee) is satisfied of this, he will announce in uk.net.news.announce
that, in the absence of valid objections, the new group will be created
on a date not less than 5 days thereafter. In the event of 4 or more
objections, or any objection which seems to the committee to be well
founded, the fast-track method shall not be used, and the RFD should either
proceed to a vote, or have a revised RFD submitted for further discussion.
========================================================================
PROPOSAL 5 - Rationalise language
Rationale:
In many places in the document SHOULD is used when the imperative is
meant (SHALL or MUST)
Add the following text immediately after the title line;
The following words where used in this document have the precise
meanings shown here;
SHALL - any RFD which fails to follow this guideline will be invalid
SHOULD - in all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow
this guideline
MAY - whilst this guideline is acceptable practice, it remains optional
Reword the following items as shown (NB items altered by points 1-4 above
are not reworded by this proposal. The changed words are shown capitalised
for clarity, but the final document will contain the words in their
ordinary case:
3) Discussion SHALL take place in uk.net.news.config and SHALL continue
initially for 10 days, and thereafter as required until consensus is
reached, or at least the important issues have been identified. It
should be concerned with finding the final form of the Name, Charter,
and other items listed above. Additional RFDs SHOULD be issued if
substantive changes arise during the discussion. Revised RFDs SHOULD
be discussed for a further initial 10 day period.
8) The procedures described above SHALL be used, with appropriate
changes, for the removal, renaming, splitting or combining of groups,
for introducing major changes to the hierarchy, for changing the
moderation status, or for forcing a change of moderator (under normal
circumstances, it is accepted that a retiring moderator appoints his
successor).
========================================================================
Ballot Details and Counts
=========================
Language-----------------+
Fast-Track--------------+ |
Naming-----------+ | |
Binaries--------+ | | |
Posting Rules-----+ | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Voter Name | | | | | Address (ish)
| | | | |
Keith Willoughby A Y A Y Y keith.cowtown.wftd.demon.co.uk
John M. Line Y Y Y Y Y jml4.cus.bhlwl.cam.ac.uk
Steven Clarke Y Y Y Y Y steven.pdi.clarke.keble.oxford.ac.uk
Rick Martin Y Y Y Y Y rickm.bkof.pixel.co.uk
David Wood Y Y Y Y Y david.ckd.wood2.demon.co.uk
Lyn David Thomas Y Y Y Y A lyn.stuffing.bbgi.demon.co.uk
Simon Gray Y Y Y N Y simon.hsns.star-one.org.uk
Paul Bolchover Y Y Y N A pb10003.ghpb.cus.cam.ac.uk
Chris Isbell Y Y Y Y Y chris.isbell.pae.demon.co.uk
David Smith Y Y Y Y Y ds.lfsos.lionins.co.uk
Tim Bray Y Y Y N Y Tim.dbkl.mikebray.demon.co.uk
Nigel Ashton Y Y Y Y Y nigel.ashton.bwfr.demon.co.uk
Richard Clayton Y A Y N Y richard.turnpike.hcbbe.com
Philip Hunt Y Y N Y Y phil.vision25.wpi.demon.co.uk
Mike Cattell Y Y Y Y Y MCattell.akfp.mikecat.demon.co.uk
C. R. Newport Y Y Y Y Y crn.ckin.netix.demon.co.uk
Barry Carr Y Y Y Y Y barry.cdw.bsce.demon.co.uk
Chris J Dixon Y Y Y Y Y chris.pdgte.dixon.easynet.co.uk
Dave Mayall Y Y Y Y Y david.aob.mayall.ukonline.co.uk
Illtud Daniel Y Y Y Y Y idaniel.jesus.eee.ox.ac.uk
Charles Lindsey Y Y Y Y Y chl.clw.cs.vbua.man.ac.uk
David M Bloor Y Y Y Y Y david.bloor.ppht.demon.co.uk
Alan Ralph Y Y Y Y Y alan.ralph.ftbk.ukonline.co.uk
John Stockton Y Y Y Y A jrs.spbsh.merlyn.demon.co.uk
Chris Watts. Y Y Y Y Y chris.lisr.vineries.demon.co.uk
Christopher Watkins A Y A A A christopher.pehs.uffa.demon.co.uk
Iain Bowen Y Y N N A alaric.harlech.kmdhk.demon.co.uk
Chris Jay Y Y Y Y Y cjay.hnenm.globalnet.co.uk
Richard Ashton Y Y Y Y Y richard.ptpt.corixia.demon.co.uk
Jon Harley Y Y Y Y Y jon.ffbk.serf.org
Adam Calow Y N Y Y A adam.adc.sdnpu.netkonect.co.uk
Pete Humble Y Y Y A Y pjh1.bltn.leicester.ac.uk
Rod Ellery Y Y Y Y Y rod.eku.ellery.demon.co.uk
Kevin Lee Y Y Y N N ja56.dial.pipex.emia.com
Adrian Wontroba Y Y Y Y Y aw1.hrekf.stade.co.uk
Chris Clough Y Y Y Y Y ChrisC.cdwt.pobox.co.uk
jAmES Lawson Y Y Y A Y chasm.eeo.zetnet.co.uk
David Boothroyd Y N Y Y Y david.vhdif.election.demon.co.uk
Patrick Herring Y Y Y Y Y ph.mnj.anweald.exnet.co.uk
Anthony Gold Y Y Y Y Y tgold.panix.hat.com
Total 'Yes' 38 37 36 31 33
Total 'No' 0 2 2 6 1
Proposal 1: Posting Rules
Yes-No = 38 Yes % = 100 Passed
Proposal 2: Regulation of Binaries
Yes-No = 35 Yes % = 94 Passed
Proposal 3: Naming Conventions
Yes-No = 34 Yes % = 94 Passed
Proposal 4: Fast Track
Yes-No = 25 Yes % = 83 Passed
Proposal 5: Rationalise Language
Yes-No = 32 Yes % = 97 Passed
=========================================================================
Votetaker's Notes
-----------------
There were 40 valid ballots. In addition two ballots were superseded
by later ballots from the same address and one ballot was bounced as
being from an admin account with a request that it be re-submitted.
I've tried to make the automated culling of voter addresses difficult.
There's no way to stop someone who is willing to edit them by hand,
however, since under the current guidelines they need to be understandable
by the voters and other interested parties. I would be interested in
feedback on this method of mangling.
--
Malcolm Mladenovic - Volunteer Votetaker, UK-VOTING. voting@mort.demon.co.uk
please use mbm@acm.org for personal mail
UK-VOTING web pages are at http://www.harlech.demon.co.uk/ukvoting.htm
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
