Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!van-bc!seac!jtc
From: jtc@seac.UUCP (J.T. Conklin)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Blanket Voting (was Re: Call For Votes: REC.AUDIO.HIGH-END)
Message-ID: <5588@seac.UUCP>
Date: 29 Dec 89 23:33:50 GMT
References: <1656@uwm.edu> <11644@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <50202@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: jtc@wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin)
Organization: SEAC Software Engineering, Vancouver, B.C.
Lines: 33

In article <50202@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>Surely you should try to evaluate each proposal on its own merits,
>rather than applying blanket litmus tests (non-tech + moderated = NO).

I have found that quite a few of the people that have voted for
or against "news.software.misc" seem to have their own blanket
criteria for new newsgroup voting.  

I received comments such as the following:

  "I vote yes for all UNmoderated newsgroups ..."

  "No.  I only vote for moderated groups"

  "I'm voting yes because if someone has taken the time to 
   propose a new group it's probably worth it."

  "I vote yes for all .misc groups"

In a close vote, a few of these blanket votes could cause a new
group to pass/fail.  After the vote is over (Jan 20), I'll read
through the votes in an attempt to see how they bias the vote.

If any other vote-taker (past or present) has any information to
add.  I'd apprieciate it if you'd mail it to me.

Thanks, 

    --jtc

-- 
J.T. Conklin
	jtc@wimsey.bc.ca, ...!{uunet, ubc-cs}!van-bc!jtc