Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!hacgate!gryphon!turnkey!elrond!oleg
From: oleg@elrond.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: A new 100 NO votes suggestion
Message-ID: <98@elrond.la.locus.com>
Date: 14 Nov 89 03:22:37 GMT
References: <11424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6907@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: oleg@elrond.la.locus.com (Oleg Kiselev)
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles
Lines: 36

In article <6907@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <11424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> djgrabin@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Joseph Grabiner) writes:
>> If a group passes with 100 more YES than NO votes and at least 100 NO
>> votes, then a new vote, by approval voting (yes/no on each proposed
>> name) or STV, should be held on the proposed name of the group.

Let me drop a fly into your ointment.  If a group passes with 2500 YES votes
and there are 101 NO votes, the foolishness of your suggestion will become
quite apparent.  And here is the second fly: proposed name is not always the
subject of contention.  comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac farce had nothing to do
with the naming.

>This is good. It avoids complexity for the majority of votes where the
>name is not in question, and avoids any possibility of a group being
>blocked by a bunch of reactionaries.

Really?  Like what happened to rec.sex?  Or was that soc.sex?  Or comp.sex?
News.sex, perhaps?  No?  Perhaps it's purely coincidental that .sex group
exists only in ALT, where there is no voting as such and groups come about
and die off more or less by consensus.

Besides, why is it that less than 100 NO votes would be considered a "bunch
of reactionaries" while 100+ NO votes would not?

Or are you all saying that the group, as such, should be considered as having
passed, but a name vote is being held just to "make sure"?

In that case, sci.aquaria would have still passed, despite a heavy opposition
by a sizable "bunch of reactionaries".

Excuse me, I have to go feed my fish now.

-- 
--
Oleg Kiselev               I speak for myself only.
(213)337-5230