Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) 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: Date: 10 Feb 90 13:36:09 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 23 Firstly, I'm not sure what the intent of a separate "abstain" and "no group" entries is. You are requiring that there be 100 more "majority" votes than "abstain" votes. This makes the "abstain" votes de-facto "no group" votes. After running a few STV votes, I have come to the conclusion that a fairer way to do things is for each voter to indicate whether they think the group should exist or not independently of where they think the group should be in the hierarchy. I would like to propose the following change: The vote is in two parts. First, indicate on the subject line what your vote on the existence of the group is: YES or NO. Then, following the YES or NO indicate your preferences for a name. If you have no preference, leave this part blank. The preferences should be handled as listed in the original call for discussion, except that no "abstain" entry would be used. Only list the groups that you have a preference for. Your preferences will be counted even if you vote against the group. If there are more than 100 more YES then NO votes, *and* the name that wins a majority of votes has more than 2/3 more votes than any other candidate, the group is created with that name. If eiither of these conditions does not hold true, the group is not created. Subject: YES bdcaf on the JUNGIAN vote. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'