Xref: utzoo news.groups:26571 comp.unix.internals:1486 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!midway!gargoyle!chinet!laird From: laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: comp.unix.* results Message-ID: <1990Dec16.002615.6283@chinet.chi.il.us> Date: 16 Dec 90 00:26:15 GMT References: <11409@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Lines: 33 In article <11409@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgm@fed.expres.cs.cmu.edu (John G. Myers) writes: >I fail to understand Laird's math. According to his post, the votes >were: > >That makes 144+19= 163 votes for wizards and 16+61=77 against, making >the proposal fail the 100-vote margin by 14 votes. I was hoping not to have to use the clause, but I was not sure that there would be enough votes in a tripartite scheme to carry the 100+ margin, so I created a quintapartite scheme. I also mailed individual attributions in part in order to head off too much flambescence after the vote - as I mentioned, several voters changed to "only" (or in at least one case from "only") so I have to assume that they got the message. To quote from the Call: If you want to vote to replace comp.unix.internals only if your choice passes, use 'comp.unix.esoterica only' or 'comp.unix.wizards only' on the Subject: line, otherwise I will not count your vote against the 2/3 majority needed to conform to the Guidelines. That is, a vote reading Subject: comp.unix.esoterica only is a vote against comp.unix.wizards but a vote reading Subject: comp.unix.esoterica is a vote for esoterica but possibly also for wizards. and that is how I tallied them. -- Laird J. Heal The Usenet is dead! Here: laird@chinet.chi.il.us Long Live the Usenet!