Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!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: <6331@ncar.ucar.edu> Date: 16 Feb 90 18:28:53 GMT References: <1990Feb7.224449.8453@diku.dk> <13779@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1AP1WZAxds13@ficc.uu.net> <6310@ncar.ucar.edu> <01@DEL.> <6316@ncar.ucar.edu> <96971@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Lines: 49 In article <96971@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <6316@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@snowmass.scd.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: >>And yes, as a matter of fact I *have* seen >>proposals dropped or names changed as a result of the discussion period. > >But would they not be dropped, even more quietly, if they started the >survey right away, and saw there was no interest? In some cases, perhaps. But I still think it is a good idea if people have some idea what they are voting for. That is part of what the discussion period is also about: to at least semi-formalize the group charter. >but simply starting the survey right away (if desired) >and letting any discussion take place in parallel if people really want it. That can cause other problems, such as what happens if the charter or name of the group changes as a result of the discussion in a way I don't like, but I've already voted? Then we get people wanting to change their votes and it gets lots messier than it already is. >The point was, the discussion doesn't *change* people's votes, it just >adds new ones I'm not sure I agree with this as I said above. It may not change someone's mind about a particular proposal, but it *might* change the proposal in a way that would cause someone's vote to change. For example, if the sci.aquaria name had been changed as a result of the discussion I might not have voted against it, I probably would have just abstained. > So there is no problem with them taking place together. I think there is. >And if discussion calls off a proposal, that doesn't cause harm if the >survey has started. The proposer simply abandons it. This gives far too much power to the vote-taker. It presumes the final result before the vote is finished. >And yes, there's a problem with names, but there's always a problem with >names and this is no better or worse. I think it would be a LOT worse if the name could change after some people have already voted. And what would we gain if we did this? A few days off the creation time? I don't think those few days are worth the potential extra mess. --Greg