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: <6310@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 15 Feb 90 01:14:49 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> <13779@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1AP1WZAxds13@ficc.uu.net> Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Lines: 22 In article lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >I see no reason why one couldn't use STV >to pick the name before a call for votes to see if the group should >be created. This would require for no serious change in the >guidelines. I agree. The purpose of the discussion period prior to calling for a vote is to firstly decide on whether a group is really desireable, and second to decide on a name. The guidelines do not say how the latter decision should be made. I see nothing wrong with formalizing that with a preliminary vote on the name. Since that vote is not intended to be binding, it doesn't have to be easily verifiable. Those who are truly opposed to a name that wins an STV vote are still free to vote against it come official vote time, and those who don't care about the name can still vote for it. In most cases, I don't think such a preliminary vote is needed, but in cases where there is a lot of controversy over the name, taking a preliminary vote on the name might be one way of formally ending the discussion period and getting on to a creation vote. And when there *is* a big controversy over the name, I see nothing wrong with delaying the creation by running a preliminary name vote in order to reduce the flame wars over the name. --Greg