Call For Votes for sci.physics.strings

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Urs
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proposal for a new usenet newsgroup titled "sci.physics.strings," aimed at facilitating discussions on string theory, quantum gravity, and the unification of forces. Participants are encouraged to vote on the creation of this newsgroup, with specific voting requirements outlined.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express support for the newsgroup, suggesting it could enhance online discussions in string theory and attract experts who currently do not participate in online forums.
  • Others emphasize the importance of voting, noting that a significant number of YES votes are necessary for the newsgroup to be created, and encourage all interested parties to participate in the vote.
  • One participant raises concerns about the proposed moderator, Lubos, citing past behavior as intolerable and suggesting it could lead to a hostile environment, which may influence their voting decision.
  • A participant questions the voting procedure, highlighting potential confusion regarding how votes are to be submitted and counted.
  • Another participant humorously speculates about the location of the votetaker, indicating a light-hearted tone amidst the procedural discussions.
  • After the voting concludes, it is reported that the proposal passes with a significant majority, prompting questions about the timeline for the newsgroup's establishment.
  • Concerns are raised regarding potential censorship by the moderator once the newsgroup is active, indicating apprehension about the governance of discussions within the new forum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of support and concern regarding the creation of the newsgroup. While many are in favor and have voted positively, there are significant disagreements regarding the choice of moderator and the implications of that choice on future discussions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for a substantial number of votes for the newsgroup to be established, with concerns about the voting process and the influence of moderator selection on the community dynamics.

Urs
Science Advisor
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
A new usenet newsgroup "sci.physics.strings" has been proposed recently.

The group shall offer researchers, graduate students and everybody else who is interested in string theory the opportunity to find and participate in discussions focused on topics of string theory, the candidate for a theory of quantum gravity and unification of forces.

Creating a new newsgroup on usenet requires a public poll. Everybody may and is invited to vote for or against the creation of sci.physics.strings. The instructions for how to vote together with further background information are given at

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1077593588.15146@isc.org .

Sci.physics.strings will be created if the poll yields 100 more YES than NO votes and at least twice as many YES as NO votes.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I was going to abstain, but the recent activity at the cafe and here in Thieman thread are moving me towards an affirmative vote :-) because perhaps after all it is possible to do really some physics online in the internet. Even if it is strings :-P
 
Yes, doing research and cooperating on the internet is possible. But it is hard to get started. The recent events have shown that such a discussion profits from the presence and activity of several different forums with different cultures of discussion.

Three such forums, sci.physics.research, the Strings&Loops section of PF as well as the String Coffee Table, have participated intensively and mutually fertilized in the recent discussion of the 'LQG-string'.

A usenet newsgroup sci.physics.strings, with hopefully many experts participating that currently totally abstain from online discussion, would be an ideal addition.

But it will be hard. We are being told be usenet 'officials' that our chances for sci.physics.strings are not too good. We need at least 100+ YES votes. That's quite a bit. Most proposed newsgroups get barely more that 70-80 YES votes.

Therefore everybody who cares even a little bit should vote. Please don't abstain. Every vote is valuable.

Nobody should fear that sci.physics.strings will draw attention away from his favorite forum. I am not afraid for the Coffee Table, either. On the contrary, I am expecting new dynamics at the Coffee table and here on PF from the creation of sci.physics.strings, because the latter has the potential to bring in valuable people which currently don't participate in online discussion at all.

P.S. Regarding cooperation:

I am currently doing a step-by-step discussion of a paper of mine and papers by Ioannis Giannakis at http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000266.html#c000682 This is a great experience. Anyone who feels that he wants to chime in is invited to do so!

Another great example is what is happening at http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000298.html . Eric Forgy, Alejandro Rivero and now Prof. Bossavit are discussing new research in discrete geometry with applications to physics. Great fun.
 
you've got my vote
 
Just sent in my ballot.
 
Thanks for your votes!

If you know anyone else who might be interested in online discussion of string theory then please let him or her know about the ballot, too.
 
Moderators

I still can't seem to bring myself to support this group with Lubos listed as a moderator. His insulting behaviour is intolerable and this would just give him free reign to blast people with impunity.

I need to decide if I will simply not vote or give a NO vote.

Eric

PS: I think people should be aware of this before simply voting YES because having a string newsgroup sounds like a good idea. There is more politics going on here than they would like you to believe.

PPS: s.p.r. is not as unfriendly to strings as the call for votes would have you to believe either.
 
Last edited:
The voting procedure is byzantine. How can these two statements be logically reconciled?

Voters must mail their ballots directly to the votetaker.

Votes mailed to any other email address, including that of the votetaker,
will NOT be counted.
 
Probably the votetaker is in Miami :-)
 
  • #10
sci.physics.strings passes, 132:19!
 
  • #11
Yay! When will it be up?
 
  • #12
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yay! When will it be up?

apparently there will be a 5 day discussion period first.
 
  • #13
What recourse will one have if he feels that the moderator is censoring you?
 

Similar threads

How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Graduate BRS: Random Comments on Some Recent PF Threads
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
15K
News Using M.R.I.'s to See Politics on the Brain
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K