Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!garm
From: garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk.
Summary: Wait on talk.philosophy.objectivism; call for Sci.* asap.
Message-ID: <7423@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 19:00:14 GMT
References: <264@fornax.UUCP> miron@lccr.UUCP
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 43

>                          The sci vote should be first since it is
>harder.  

Furthermore, we should postpone a vote for any group, for the following
reasons:

       1) There has been little discussion on a charter for either group,
          and that should precede any call for votes.  We need to know what
          we're getting into before we start counting votes.

       2) The machines at ATT (at least in New Jersey) are not receiving any
          mail or USENET postings, and so cannot take part in any vote, call
          for votes, etc.  This is relevant, in this case, because the one who
          _started_ this whole thing by his postings on sci.philosophy.tech,
          R.W. Stubblefield, cannot take part in the discussion, nor can he
          propose sci.philosophy.objectivism.  I think it is proper to give
          him the chance to put forward his own ideas (charter, etc.) before
          we vote on any group, sci.* _or_ talk.*

       3) The poll which Bill Wells recently posted was skewed, as at least
          three, and possibly more, people at Bellabs were not able to vote.

       4) As Miron notes, the vote for sci.* should precede that for talk.*,
          as sci.* is the more controversial, and therefore the more likely
          to get voted down.

          What is the procedure for the call for votes?  When can one
>post it?
>

Anyone have any answers on this?  Mr. Stubblefield seems to know the rules,
but, as I have mentioned, he is currently incommunicado.  So is there anyone
who can inform me as to when it would be appropriate to start pushing for a 
vote on sci.philosophy.objectivism?  I would advocate taking several more days
for discussion on charters, based on Mr. Stubblefield's preliminary suggestion,
and call for a vote within a week.  Then, the "talk."'ers could begin
discussing their charter if SPO fails.  We need to be as methodical about this
as possible, so that we obtain the best possible result for all concerned.


--Robert Garmong
--University of Chicago
  Undergraduate department of economics.