Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:8056 news.groups:7446 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!nsb+ From: nsb+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathaniel Borenstein) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,news.groups Subject: comp.andrew vote report Message-ID: Date: 17 Feb 89 16:05:59 GMT Organization: Information Technology Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 36 OK, I do appreciate all the comments. Here's the scoop: On my call for votes, so far I have 104 yes votes and 7 no votes, and they're still trickling in. However, most of the no votes said they would have been yes votes had I had a discussion period first, sigh... So it seems clear that there is enough interest by the "100 more yeses than nos" standard. (Note also that very few of the 7000 Andrew users at CMU bothered to vote, though they could have -- they don't need netnews to discuss Andrew and hence mostly didn't bother voting.) However, there were also several suggestions regarding the name and status of the newsgroup. Several people suggested "comp.sys.andrew", despite the fact that Andrew is not hardware. Others suggested "comp.env.andrew", despite the fact that this would be the only node under a new "comp.env". Given the lack of a consensus on this -- and the fact that only about 10 people suggested any change at all -- I think I'd like to stick to my guns; if I called for another vote today, I'd still call for "comp.andrew". Barry Shein had a very good suggestion, however -- he suggested that comp.andrew be gatewayed with the info-andrew mailing list. This makes a lot of sense to me. He also suggested that there might be fewer objections to a new gatewayed group than to an entirely new group; I'm more skeptical of that, but we'll see... Thus, my current proposal is that we set up comp.andrew and have it gatewayed with the info-andrew mailing list. The other question is whether or not I need to conduct a second vote. My preference would be not to do so. So far, nobody has said "I think you should conduct a second vote", although one person said, "you probably ought to conduct a second vote because so many people will object if you don't." Obviously, I'd prefer not to. Does anyone else feel a strong need for a second vote? Of course, we haven't had a full two weeks of discussions yet, and I wouldn't *dream* of starting a new vote until that period was over. But perhaps people can give more of an indication of whether or not a second vote is necessary? I will certainly be inclined to interpret silence as an indication that a new vote is NOT necessary...