Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!haven!udel!burdvax!gvlv2!gvlf1-c!markw
From: markw@gvlf1-c.gvl.unisys.com (Mark H. Weber)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Updated Call for Votes: talk.religion.pagan
Message-ID: <494@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 18:14:54 GMT
References: <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> <9692@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@gvlv2.GVL.Unisys.COM
Reply-To: markw@gvlf1-c.UUCP (Mark H. Weber)
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Lines: 50

In article <9692@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>In article <23146@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin@cs.utexas.edu
>(Dave Weinstein) writes:

Dave> Due to the upgrade of the Operating System of the network from which
Dave> the vote was being conducted, votes sent between (approximately) January
Dave> 2nd and Janary 10th (the deadline) could not get through. Therefore,
Dave> in all fairness to those who attempted to vote during that period, the
Dave> vote has been extended for a comparable amount of time to January 20th, 
Dave> 1990. 

Tim> Now we have a unilateral declaration of an extension of the voting period,
Tim> obviously because the collector hopes to get more yes votes.  It is
Tim> obvious that if there were enough votes at present, then the collector
Tim> would not have called for an extension.  It is equally obvious that if
Tim> there had been a real problem with vote delivery starting two weeks
Tim> ago, as claimed, we would have heard about it before now.

I'm not sure exactly what's obvious to you, but it was obvious to our
machine that "walt.cc.utexas.edu" was unreachable from the internet for
about a week:
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 23:12:54 -0500
> Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
> To: Postmaster
> To: mhw@lock60.UUCP
> 
>    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>    421 walt.cc.utexas.edu.arpa... Deferred: Connection timed out during user open with walt.cc.utexas.edu
> 
>    ----- Unsent message follows -----
> 

I wasn't too worried about this, because I remembered that Dave posted a 
message around the first of the year saying that this would probably happen.
The fact that we haven't heard much about these votes not getting through
was that Dave posted this message, and most voters had already cast their
votes, or (for procrastinators like myself) waited patiently for his
system to come back up.  System "walt" is back on the net now, but is being
renamed (?) to "ccwf". I assumed that this upgrade was not planned when
the vote was first announced, and that the voting period would be extended
due to this unforseen circumstance. This seems reasonable to me.

Wouldn't this be a lot of trouble to go through, just to get a newsgroup 
voting period extended? I think we should believe Dave's story, and allow 
him to extend the voting period.

-- 
  Mark H. Weber                   | Internet: markw@GVL.Unisys.COM  
  Unisys - Great Valley Labs      |     UUCP: ...!uunet!lgnp1!gvlv2!markw
  Paoli, PA  USA  (215) 648-7111  |           ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw