Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping
Message-ID: <10759@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 28 Dec 89 08:48:56 GMT
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 37

In article <7425@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> 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.
>No time at all.

Great!  So a vote may be taken at any time as long as someone on the
net is still discussing the original proposal.

Next question:  under the da Silva voting guidelines, how long is
the discussion period required to last?  As we know, the Usenet 
guidelines specifiy two weeks.  What do your guidelines require?

>         But the only real way to know if the discussion is still
>going on is to read news.groups and see what people are talking about.

Uh.... yes, Peter?  Did you just feel like stating the obvious or
were you intending to make some sort of point by mentioning this?

>That's the way Usenet works.

I know how Usenet works, Peter dear -- what I want know is how your
new voting guidelines work.  

>When I called for votes, 

"When (you) called for votes" -- god, I love it!  My favorite thing
about the da Silva voting process is how neatly it turns an informal 
"opinion poll" into a formal "call for votes" after the "poll" is
finished.   This is absolutely brilliant, Peter.  And so much easier 
than doing anything that might actually be considered voting oops!!
I meant to say -opinion poll- fraud.

>			the discussion was definitely still going on.

I didn't say it wasn't, Peter.  It's obvious that it's with us still
even today.