Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!okstate.UUCP!uokvax.UUCP!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <9300043@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Jan-86 13:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uokvax.9300043
Posted: Tue Jan  7 13:06:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Jan-86 02:53:03 EST
References: <9300037@uokvax.UUCP>
Lines: 34
Nf-ID: #R:uokvax.UUCP:9300037:uokvax.UUCP:9300043:000:1113
Nf-From: uokvax.UUCP!emjej    Jan  7 12:06:00 1986


Well, here are the results--the last vote came in shortly after the
winter solstice.  Admittedly, Christmastime is not the world's best time
for a survey, but that's when the brouhaha appeared, so...

Here's the summary of the votes received, with some breaking down within
large classifications:

TOTAL VOTES	-- 33

YES		-- 27
	unqualified yes						22
	yes, but prefer an unmoderated group			 4
	yes, get that @#$!@#! out of my newsgroup		 1

NO		--  3
	want unmoderated group instead				 1
	think net.micro.6809 is sufficient			 1
	don't think there's enough traffic to warrant it	 1
		(let it stay in {net, mod}.os until then)

UNCERTAIN	--  1
	said "why not unmoderated," but didn't give yes/no vote	 1

CONDITIONAL	--  2
	iff the mod.os.* go through				 1
	iff 6809 traffic can be separated from 68k traffic	 1

The above counts none of the prior mail I have received on the subject,
which is as it should be.  There you have it, sports fans; these numbers
are in the hands of the folks in whose hands such things are put as well
as posted here, so my job (well, this one anyway) is done.

						James Jones