Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!snowmass.scd.ucar.edu!woods
From: woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Group Surveys (was: STV new group proposal in 25 lines)
Keywords: single transferrable votes STV newsgroup creation interest group
Message-ID: <6279@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 90 22:30:06 GMT
References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Lines: 24


  I do not wish to get into an endless discussion, but in my opinion, any
voting procedure that requires programs that are not a standard part of
an operating system in use on a significant number of machines on the net
in order to count votes cannot be considered to be easily verifiable.
Remember that in order to be verifiable, Joe Random User needs to be able
to verify that the posted votes really add up to the result claimed by
the vote taker (mayube not EVERY Joe Random, but some large percentage of
them anyway). The STV procedure does not meet this requirement. I have
no objection to its use in initial name surveys; I think anything that
cuts down on the flame wars over names is a good thing. But I don't think
we want to replace that with flame wars on the voting results instead, nor
do we want to put even more power in the hands of the vote takers.
Votes which are difficult to verify will do just that. I am opposed to
using the STV procedure for official newsgroup creation votes.
   I have stated my case here, so my lack of response to any rebuttals
of this article does not indicate any change in my position. Rather it 
indicates my desire to stay out of a never-ending discussion by allowing my 
opponents to have the last word.

--Greg

P.S. I'm all for changing the word "vote" to "survey" to more accurately
     reflect reality.