Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!mesard
From: mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: A proposal for a new voting scheme
Message-ID: <48303@bbn.COM>
Date: 15 Nov 89 23:30:22 GMT
References: <21699@gryphon.COM> <2784@cpoint.UUCP> <2785@cpoint.UUCP> <6931@ficc.uu.net> <1627@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: mesard@BBN.COM (Wayne Mesard)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 20

davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>When a group name is in doubt a vote
>should be taken on the charter first, then a name should be chosen by
>simple majority vote.

That's essentially what we do now, except the name is decided (barring a
recent example) by consensus rather than by an explicit vote.

The problem is that the intent of the proponents of a group is often
poorly correlated with what actually winds up in the group.

<insert standard list of examples here.>

It's my impression that the opponents of sci.you-know-what don't think
that a technical aquarium group is a Bad Thing.  Rather, they believe
that the group we wind up with will be significantly different than the
charter.

-- 
void *Wayne_Mesard();         Mesard@BBN.COM         BBN, Cambridge, MA