Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: CALL FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION Revision 2: Split the c.s.a group more? Keywords: reply time limited Message-ID: <1990Oct31.012654.21607@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 31 Oct 90 01:26:54 GMT References: <1990Oct28.001448.25414@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <6916@sugar.hackercorp.com> <10068@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 27 In article <10068@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> jimmy@uhunix1.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Jimmy Chan) writes: > >When the call for votes go out, will we be able to vote yes/no for each >group or will all the groups be lumped together for one vote? There will be a yes/no for each group, and, if there is still significant quibbling about names for some groups, a subordinate "plurality wins" vote for the two or three names most supported. Nevertheless, I urge each voter to vote yes on the whole split or no on the whole split. There are lots of combinations that could come out of a partially approved proposal that would be worse than leaving things as is. Remember, we're really not voting on whether we approve of the traffic that will be in a group, the traffic will exist with or without this proposal; we're just voting on where that traffic will appear. I personally plan to create an emailer daemon that sends "take it to .influence" letters to the author of every rambling flame in another c.s.a group. ;-) /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, ongoing comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization.