Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!vector!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping
Message-ID: <10747@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 27 Dec 89 07:40:03 GMT
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 33

In article <7411@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>yeh, H-bombs are lively:->). However if you were to want to hold such a vote
>*now* you'd have to go through all the motions.

Well, now we're getting somewhere!  Excellent, Peter!

Now, please tell us how much time may pass between the end of the
first discussion period and the call for votes for the second news-
group.

For example:

	January 18-31  discussion period for rec.abc
	February 1-21  voting period for rec.abc

Now, how much time between the end of the discussion period (ie Jan-
uary 31st) may elapse before it is too late to call for a separate 
vote for the creation of talk.abc without holding another discussion 
period?

You'll want to remember before you reply that the discussion period
for sci.aquaria ended October 15th and votes were taken between then
and November 5th.  I don't remember when you started your vote but
you posted the results on December 12th, so let's say it was on or
about November 20th (please feel free to supply the exact date).

I'm sure you're now going to tell me that the discussion period con-
tinued way past October 15th and in fact continues to this day well
over a month since the original group was created and that's fine
with me.  But does this mean that as long as at least someone is 
still writing about the subject, that the formal discussion period
is considered to be still in process?  And if not, what is the cut-
off point?