Relayed-by: firstname.lastname@example.org (The Cat in the Hat)
[Ed: I wrote this, but David sent it in--I don't do my own stuff unless other people prompt it. It was prompted by the slew of silly suggestions on how to deal with the question of whether aquariums are a science or a hobby.]
Here's a better idea. When an idea for a new group comes up, we should have a vote on who gets to propose it. After that is decided, we can vote on who gets to pick the names. Then we'll get a list of names, and use 'New Zealand' voting rules. Under NZ rules, (OK!) each person gets 8 votes. They use 2-4 votes on the name they like most, 1-4 votes on the 2nd best name and so on. In addition, you get 8 negative votes for names you don't like. In the end, the vote totals are multipied by rand() and the one closest to e^sqrt(pi) is the winner.
Once a name has been decided, we vote on whether we want the group or not. At the end, we vote on whether there should be a 5 day cooling-period after the vote, and if so, the duration of the period, if not to be five, is decided by New Zealand rules. If the group champion wishes to go to the bathroom, he or she must conduct a vote lasting 14 to 30 days to decide if it is to be #1 or #2.
Finally, if it is decided that the group is to be created, and the group champion has not yet exploded, the group champion can send a request for a newgroup to email@example.com. If the people on that list like the group, they will create it. If they do, each admin can then decide, as they wish, whether to carry and/or forward the group on their own machine. But otherwise the vote is binding. (Unless a vote declares it to be non-binding)