Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.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: <6316@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 15 Feb 90 20:15:31 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> <13779@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1AP1WZAxds13@ficc.uu.net> <6310@ncar.ucar.edu> <96250@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Lines: 14 In article <96250@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Have you ever decided to "vote" yes for a group because the discussion >phase convinced you there was interest in the group, and you wouldn't have >"voted" so otherwise? The point of the discussion period, according to the article you followed up and also according to the guidelines, is to 1) Decide if a new group is really desired; and 2) Decide on a name for the group. Neither my article nor the guidelines say anything about using the discussion period to convince people how they should vote. Yes, it gets used for that, but that isn't the main purpose of it. And yes, as a matter of fact I *have* seen proposals dropped or names changed as a result of the discussion period. --Greg