Xref: utzoo news.groups:26437 unix-pc.general:6834 comp.sys.att:11157
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ns-mx!ccad.uiowa.edu!emcguire
From: emcguire@ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire)
Newsgroups: news.groups,unix-pc.general,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.sys.[att].[3b1|unixpc|safari]
Keywords: vote, unixpc, 3b1, 7300, safari, miniframe, s4, att, vote
Message-ID: <1990Dec12.000624.6580@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 90 00:06:24 GMT
References: <1990Dec7.131017.5447@bagend.uucp> <58824@becker.UUCP>
Organization: Sequential Stream_Of_Consciousness
Lines: 23

In article <1990Dec7.131017.5447@bagend.uucp> jan@bagend.uucp (Jan
Isley) writes:

     During the discussion period, a consensus was reached to vote for
     the creation of a group for these systems, and a sources group.

In article <58824@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes:

     This is a misstatement, at least according to the understanding I
     have of the meaning of the term "consensus".

     A small but significant minority (myself among them, natch)
     objected strongly to this move.

What is required is a concensus among the *proponents* of a new group
proposal.  *Opponents* of a proposal such as yourself can certainly
argue their case during the discussion period, and should obviously
vote against the proposal.  But the existence of a vocal minority
opposing a new group does not justify calling off the vote.
-- 
peace.  -- Ed
"Over here, Bones!  This man's dying!"
"Damn it, Jim!  I'm a doctor, not a . . .  What did you say?"