Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!news
From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions
Message-ID: <1989Oct11.023953.26183@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 89 02:39:53 GMT
References: <8910081919.AA15665@helios.enea.se> <3315@watale.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu (Network News)
Reply-To: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Organization: University of California: ICS Department
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen)

In article <3315@watale.waterloo.edu>, tom@mims-iris (Tom Haapanen) writes:
|Yes, YES, YES! YES!!!  I think STV modified with !votes is the most
|workable idea around.  It lets you vote for a group, with preference for
|specific names, it lets you vote against a group, and it lets you just
|vote against specific names.  The vote is indeed complex, but counting
|could surely be done by an awk script or something similar.  And it's a
|lot less bureaucratic and a lot quicker than running two votes, one on
|the name and one on the group.

Yes, but can you imagine the chaos that will result if we adopt
this method.  I mean, right now it's all we can do to keep folks
from posting, as opposed to emailing, their votes.  What do you
think these people will do when confronted with STV procedures?!
You'd have to create a group - news.stv-questions - to deal with
the confusion!!

--Cindy
...or maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic...
nope; considering news.avian, no way...

--
Anyone's death diminishes me,            \   | ARPA: tittle@ics.uci.edu
  Because I am involved in Humanity,     /\  | BITNET: tittle@uci.bitnet
And therefore never send to know             | UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle
  For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee | USNAIL: POB 4188 Irvine CA 92716