Xref: utzoo news.groups:8603 news.admin:5344
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Counting the Votes
Message-ID: <3602@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 29 Mar 89 14:13:03 GMT
References: <1634@ncar.ucar.edu> <11326@s.ms.uky.edu> <3549@ficc.uu.net> <589@sulaco.Sigma.COM>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 29

I posted this, regarding newsgroup creation:

In article <3566@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>If someone can summon up 100 people to vote against a group, there is enough
>anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. ANY group that has any great amount
>of controversy is probably going to ba a bad net.partner anyway.

Apparently Allen interpreted it in terms of newsgroup deletion:

In article <589@sulaco.Sigma.COM>, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes:
> So, if I put out a vote to rmgroup a group, and got 100 for and 100 
> against, what should be done?  What about 100 for removal and 150 for
> the retention?  Should the minority rule in this case?

Apologies for the confusion. I guess I need to word this a little better:

If someone can summon up 100 people to oppose a vote, there is enough
anti-interest to consider it a bad idea. Any vote that has a great amount
of opposition is not in the interests of the net, and the status-quo should
be retained.

Of course, I've come around to the point of view that there is nothing
fundamentally wrong with the rules as they currently stand, and I don't
think that there is any point in trying to fine-tune them right now.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.