Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: These new voting schemes
Message-ID: <6628@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 22 Oct 89 18:06:42 GMT
References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <6618@ficc.uu.net> <5730@inco.UUCP>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 28

In article <5730@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
> A most amusing example, which illustrates the problem with this scheme.

Thank you. I don't think it shows a problem with the scheme at all. The
information that it intends to elicit from the net is present: the subject
doesn't rate a group, and people think it should go in the rec hierarchy.
Later on if another vote is held, this information can be used.

> It fails to separate the two issues which are actually being voted on:
> whether or not a group devoted to the topic should exist, and if so,
> what its name should be.

Deliberately so. It's already more complex than some people are willing to
accept. Why not work to simplify it?

> A "topic: no" vote would have no influence on the
> name vote.

No sir, people who don't want to vote for the group should still have a right
to vote on the name. You're shooting down the very people who are currently
the most disenfranchised: the ones who don't care about the group but want to
keep the name in the right area of the net. That's what this whole debate is
all about, when it comes down to it.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous        'U`
 decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP